That's true, but that has basically nothing to do with generation. That's a matter of the cables in some areas being shit, above-round stuff that goes through poorly trimmed trees which, unsurprisingly, fall in the next major storm.
The solution to that is better maintenance of the grid, not anything to do with power plants.
The only thing better than stupid opinions people express on Yelp is having my own personal Yelp where people write their idiotic opinions about my house and possessions.
That's what I've heard reported elsewhere as well. But just now I saw that the Norwegian Pirate Party claims he's en route to Oslo.
Rough translation of the tweet: "#Snowden has landed in Moscow on the way to Oslo, Gardermoen. The Pirate Party will mobilize support in Oslo when he arrives."
You're telling me that a company that uses more than 650,000 partially-employed associates to design "creatives" satisfying 100,000 clients at any given time, is not taking a scrupulous, careful, original approach to designing marketing campaigns?!
That's actually a kind of funny way of using a game mechanic to criticize the original work in an adaptation. Are there any examples of it being done on purpose?
Maybe someone should make an Atlas Shrugged videogame where partway through you have to listen to a 4-hour-long unskippable speech by John Galt.
In theory, the judge is supposed to take into account whether an assertion of the state-secrets privilege prejudices the outcome of the case, and if so, is supposed to take action accordingly in the interest of justice. For example, they could exclude evidence if the defendant isn't given the proper right to examine it; or they could dismiss charges entirely if the government's assertion of privilege makes a fair trial impossible.
Getting onto a tangent, but I think the Rush quote is sort of expressing the opposite sentiment, that you can't wash your hands of making a choice you don't want to make by failing to decide, because that's still in effect making a choice in the matter.
The idea of free speech is that the state can't outright ban certain kinds of speech. It does not mean that every bit of speech must be included in every possible discussion forum. In some, you might want to be as open as possible in order to allow the widest range of unmoderated discussion. That was the goal of many of the early discussion fora like the WELL. But in others, you might want to restrict discussion more narrowly. This could be based on topic: on some Usenet groups, mailing lists, and webforums, there are ranges of topics considered on-topic, and others considered off-topic. How narrow the on-topic range is varies, and how strictly it's enforced varies (do you politely ask off-topic discussions to knock it off, do you axe them outright, etc?). It also could be based on behavior standards: do you ban people for personal attacks, for aggressive behavior, for doxxing, or any range of other activities? It depends on the community and their goals.
But the point is that these are all tradeoffs that vary by community, and don't have much to do with civil rights. It is your right to publish a shitty book of poems, but that doesn't mean you have the same right to email every poem you write to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. This is a pretty basic distinction, no?
If you're a nobody, perhaps, but do you really think the government is going to kidnap Google executives and render them to a black-site prison without trial?
The usual way First Amendment cases are decided is that someone exercises their right to free speech, the government tries to stop them, and they challenge that attempt at restraint in court. E.g. rather than suing for a declaratory judgment that you have the right to publish a James Joyce book, you just publish it, and then defend yourself if the government tries to come after you.
The concept in principle seems interesting, but are there modern examples of successful deployments of this kind? I've been at several places that have tried to roll out thin clients on everyone's desk, but those deployments have all eventually been axed in favor of just regular PCs or laptops on everyone's desk.
Part of the problem is that cheap computers are already pretty cheap, so moving to thin clients doesn't save you much, and adds more dependencies.
Conservatism's roots pretty much lie in a skepticism of counterculture, social unrest, rapid changes, etc. Edmund Burke is usually considered the intellectual founder of modern conservatism, and his criticisms of the French Revolution set the tone. In more recent, American episode, conservatives' deep hostility towards the 1960s counterculture, and support of government crackdowns against protestors (e.g. Reagan's declaration of martial law in Berkeley) is representative of the pro-authority, anti-counterculture outlook.
How are BitCoin miners "conservative"? As far as I can tell, most are some variety of techno-anarchist. That's about the opposite of conservatism, which is about stability, tradition, and respect for authority.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but that has basically nothing to do with generation. That's a matter of the cables in some areas being shit, above-round stuff that goes through poorly trimmed trees which, unsurprisingly, fall in the next major storm.
The solution to that is better maintenance of the grid, not anything to do with power plants.
None of your business. But not someone who's gonna act altruistically to save yo' ass from the USA, that much is for sure.
The only thing better than stupid opinions people express on Yelp is having my own personal Yelp where people write their idiotic opinions about my house and possessions.
Citizen complaints sometimes terrify people!
Employers asking for your social-media passwords is now illegal in several states.
Eh, it's happened now and then...
That's what I've heard reported elsewhere as well. But just now I saw that the Norwegian Pirate Party claims he's en route to Oslo.
Rough translation of the tweet: "#Snowden has landed in Moscow on the way to Oslo, Gardermoen. The Pirate Party will mobilize support in Oslo when he arrives."
No idea if that's legit.
You're telling me that a company that uses more than 650,000 partially-employed associates to design "creatives" satisfying 100,000 clients at any given time, is not taking a scrupulous, careful, original approach to designing marketing campaigns?!
Considering pretty much nobody uses Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, is it really a problem for FreeBSD's name recognition or brand confusion?
That's actually a kind of funny way of using a game mechanic to criticize the original work in an adaptation. Are there any examples of it being done on purpose?
Maybe someone should make an Atlas Shrugged videogame where partway through you have to listen to a 4-hour-long unskippable speech by John Galt.
I'll bet clicking on that Twitter link put me on some kind of list, and I needed to fly somewhere later this month!
Maybe he's angry about his own autocomplete results,
An oligopoly that between them has around 20% of the market?
Are you trying to argue that market forces don't produce a meritocracy, commie?!
Perhaps that can be a litmus test: only people who agree Michael Jackson is the best musician in history are true capitalist believers.
In theory, the judge is supposed to take into account whether an assertion of the state-secrets privilege prejudices the outcome of the case, and if so, is supposed to take action accordingly in the interest of justice. For example, they could exclude evidence if the defendant isn't given the proper right to examine it; or they could dismiss charges entirely if the government's assertion of privilege makes a fair trial impossible.
In practice this does not seem to happen much.
Notice who gave the announcement?
NVIDIA's General Counsel, David Shannon, announced that...
Although I agree, your comparison,
Getting onto a tangent, but I think the Rush quote is sort of expressing the opposite sentiment, that you can't wash your hands of making a choice you don't want to make by failing to decide, because that's still in effect making a choice in the matter.
The idea of free speech is that the state can't outright ban certain kinds of speech. It does not mean that every bit of speech must be included in every possible discussion forum. In some, you might want to be as open as possible in order to allow the widest range of unmoderated discussion. That was the goal of many of the early discussion fora like the WELL. But in others, you might want to restrict discussion more narrowly. This could be based on topic: on some Usenet groups, mailing lists, and webforums, there are ranges of topics considered on-topic, and others considered off-topic. How narrow the on-topic range is varies, and how strictly it's enforced varies (do you politely ask off-topic discussions to knock it off, do you axe them outright, etc?). It also could be based on behavior standards: do you ban people for personal attacks, for aggressive behavior, for doxxing, or any range of other activities? It depends on the community and their goals.
But the point is that these are all tradeoffs that vary by community, and don't have much to do with civil rights. It is your right to publish a shitty book of poems, but that doesn't mean you have the same right to email every poem you write to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. This is a pretty basic distinction, no?
If you're a nobody, perhaps, but do you really think the government is going to kidnap Google executives and render them to a black-site prison without trial?
The usual way First Amendment cases are decided is that someone exercises their right to free speech, the government tries to stop them, and they challenge that attempt at restraint in court. E.g. rather than suing for a declaratory judgment that you have the right to publish a James Joyce book, you just publish it, and then defend yourself if the government tries to come after you.
Can five blades be far behind?
The concept in principle seems interesting, but are there modern examples of successful deployments of this kind? I've been at several places that have tried to roll out thin clients on everyone's desk, but those deployments have all eventually been axed in favor of just regular PCs or laptops on everyone's desk.
Part of the problem is that cheap computers are already pretty cheap, so moving to thin clients doesn't save you much, and adds more dependencies.
In what sense are they conservative, then?
Conservatism's roots pretty much lie in a skepticism of counterculture, social unrest, rapid changes, etc. Edmund Burke is usually considered the intellectual founder of modern conservatism, and his criticisms of the French Revolution set the tone. In more recent, American episode, conservatives' deep hostility towards the 1960s counterculture, and support of government crackdowns against protestors (e.g. Reagan's declaration of martial law in Berkeley) is representative of the pro-authority, anti-counterculture outlook.
How are BitCoin miners "conservative"? As far as I can tell, most are some variety of techno-anarchist. That's about the opposite of conservatism, which is about stability, tradition, and respect for authority.