The spirit of the primaries is that a small group of partisan loyalists will pick a candidate that they all promise to support at the national election. So rather than having a real choice, you get a coin toss.
While I understand that Tablets are going to be the next big thing (according to tech journalists, anyway), is it necessary to have 3 separate categories for the RIM tablet, Honeycomb Tablets, and tablets in general?
Most of the stuff on the list seems to be the ultra-cheap low budget stuff, and it seems like a bit of a cheap shot to include them. Obviously a 99 pound tablet isn't going to be that great compared to, say, the iPad. What did they expect?
Maybe I'm an atypical atheist, but I don't object to religion or the teaching of creationism in schools. I object to the teaching of religion or creationism in SCIENCE classes. I have no problem with religion or creationism in a Christian theology class, a Sunday school class, or even a world literature class.
And no, I don't think books about religion should disappear and replaced with science books. I think religious books should belong in religious studies and science books should belong in science. After all, isn't it the Bible that teaches us to give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Religion has no business impersonating a science. So give unto science what is science's.
Oh, and that last bit about Wal-mart, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I won't respond to that substantively.
Maybe, but even the ancient Hebrews didn't think much of incest - remember, Leviticus 18:6 strictly prohibited the practice: "6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. "
Then, it goes on to list about a dozen different specific examples of incest that's prohibited.
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
While I agree that GEMA is going over the top by sending letters to kindergartens, there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) or reproducing a song (copying a recording of a song or copying the sheet music of a song).
18 USC 793 - relates to national security information related to designs for military vehicles, structures, munitions, etc. (This doesn't apply to Wired. This is for chat logs where Manning implicates himself, not for classified designs)
18 USC 794 - relates to delivering classified information to a foreign government in order to aid that government (Again, not applicable. Wired is not delivering classified information to a foreign government. Remember, once again, this is for chat logs)
18 USC 797 - relates to designs, sketches or photographs of defense installations (Yep, still doesn't apply to Wired.)
18 USC 798 - relates to disclosure of intercepted foreign intelligence, foreign intelligence communications, cryptographic technologies, etc. (Not diplomatic cables, and certainly NOT chat logs, as evidenced here.).
42 USC 2274 - Communications of classified data done with the intent to injure the US or to secure advantage to a foreign state. (Nope, doesn't apply to Wired either.)
42 USC 2275 - Receipt of restricted information done with the intent to injure the US or to secure advantage to a foreign state. (I don't think chat logs really count here.)
42 USC 2277 - Where US employee discloses restricted information to one without authorization to receive it. (Doesn't apply to Wired - they're not a US employee).
50 USC 783 - Where US employee discloses information to an agent of a foreign government or a Communist organization. (Again, Wired doesn't apply - they're not a US employee)
FTA: "Up to 3.5m people have died of starvation in North Korea since 1995 and up to 300,000 have fled over the border to China, a Seoul-based charity says." The article itself was written in 1999. So 3.5 million people are estimated to have died in NK in 4 years due to a famine. I'm no mathematician, but that's a lot more than 2 million in 9 years.
I don't think you'd say such things about North Korea if you know the magnitude of how bad it is there.
Yes - a state with no secrets and a state with total secrets. Those are the ONLY two choices possible. I'm sorry, but isn't this a false dichotomy fallacy? Is it not possible that a state might be open with regards to some things and be closed with some other things? You're falling into exactly the same position Floyd Abrams noted in his article - that the world must necessarily be black and white - absolute secrecy or absolute transparency.
I think Floyd Abrams hit it right on the head. The idea of any secrecy being somehow intolerable in diplomacy is a daft idea. For example, there were many diplomats working in German occupied territories in WWII who were issuing visas to Jewish refugees despite the fact that their governments instructed them not to. (For example, Ho Feng Shan, Raoul Wallenberg, etc). Would it be a good thing for these cables to be released to the public? What about secret negotiations with a government who doesn't want to publicly take actions to pressure a rogue state (say, China and North Korea?). There's a lot of discreteness that is needed in diplomacy that must be done in secret. The mentality that any secrecy is inherently wrong is counterproductive, to say the least.
And as far as your "200 years of law and court decisions", pretty much every lawyer and judge realizes that the Alien & Sedition law was a really bad law 200 years later.
Despite the fact that I carry no burden of proof to show you're full of it, I will cite you this:
42 USC 2000aa - Privacy Protection Act
(a) Work product materials Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if— (1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or (2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.
I am a native Chinese speaker who learned English (albeit at a fairly young age). I am now in my late 20s and I still have some problems with the grammar. I think the biggest problem that Chinese speakers have in English is with regards to past/present/future tenses and also for plurals. In Chinese, there's no such thing as tenses or plurals, so I always get confused with stuff like subject-verb agreement or sentences that use have/has.
Chinese people do have dictionaries, you know. Every (modern) Chinese dictionary I've ever seen have two sections - one keyed towards a Pinyin pronounciation (then arranged by accent, and finally arranged by something like the number of strokes in a character) or one keyed towards the written character itself (selecting the radical of a character and then arranged by stroke order of the word).
I don't think the difference is as great as you'd think. Most Chinese typists I know use some sort of input means that allows them to type the pinyin (like typing English) and then select a character corresponding to the pinyin from a list (done with a number at the end, so the hand never leaves the keyboard). It's actually not too bad, especially for a seasoned typist who knows exactly what they are typing and what the list will turn out to be for the characters. In addition, every Chinese input software I've ever seen also autocorrects the wording and grammar, making the whole thing even faster.
Younger Chinese folks, like my cousins, are especially adept at this. My cousins are wickedly fast on inputting Chinese with their phones.
I'm seeing a lot of the clothes with integrated technological bits and I always wonder one thing: Is this washable? From the looks of it, these things use removable solar panels. If someone forgets to remove them, I'm guessing you wind up with a $920 dollar pair of regular pants that looks ugly to boot. Let's face it, if you're stupid enough to shell out $920 bucks for these things, you probably aren't the sharpest bowling ball on the rack and you probably will forget to take them out when you wash it.
There's a brain disorder that causes people to be unable to recognize human faces. I wonder if the uncanny valley effect works on them, because clearly they are missing that survival function that you noted.
For me, it was his mouth that seemed way off. Somehow, the motion of the lips moving either seems to be off-sync with the sound, or exaggeratedly tight-lipped.
Slashdot Mirror
The spirit of the primaries is that a small group of partisan loyalists will pick a candidate that they all promise to support at the national election. So rather than having a real choice, you get a coin toss.
Hey, Ethanol-fueled, how do I volunteer with the EFF? I only see volunteering options for technologists and general volunteers on their page.
You first. I'm sure there'll be somebody to defend you.
While I understand that Tablets are going to be the next big thing (according to tech journalists, anyway), is it necessary to have 3 separate categories for the RIM tablet, Honeycomb Tablets, and tablets in general?
Most of the stuff on the list seems to be the ultra-cheap low budget stuff, and it seems like a bit of a cheap shot to include them. Obviously a 99 pound tablet isn't going to be that great compared to, say, the iPad. What did they expect?
Maybe I'm an atypical atheist, but I don't object to religion or the teaching of creationism in schools. I object to the teaching of religion or creationism in SCIENCE classes. I have no problem with religion or creationism in a Christian theology class, a Sunday school class, or even a world literature class.
And no, I don't think books about religion should disappear and replaced with science books. I think religious books should belong in religious studies and science books should belong in science. After all, isn't it the Bible that teaches us to give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Religion has no business impersonating a science. So give unto science what is science's.
Oh, and that last bit about Wal-mart, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I won't respond to that substantively.
Maybe, but even the ancient Hebrews didn't think much of incest - remember, Leviticus 18:6 strictly prohibited the practice: "6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. "
Then, it goes on to list about a dozen different specific examples of incest that's prohibited.
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
-- Genesis 19:30-36
While I agree that GEMA is going over the top by sending letters to kindergartens, there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) or reproducing a song (copying a recording of a song or copying the sheet music of a song).
18 USC 793 - relates to national security information related to designs for military vehicles, structures, munitions, etc. (This doesn't apply to Wired. This is for chat logs where Manning implicates himself, not for classified designs)
18 USC 794 - relates to delivering classified information to a foreign government in order to aid that government (Again, not applicable. Wired is not delivering classified information to a foreign government. Remember, once again, this is for chat logs)
18 USC 797 - relates to designs, sketches or photographs of defense installations (Yep, still doesn't apply to Wired.)
18 USC 798 - relates to disclosure of intercepted foreign intelligence, foreign intelligence communications, cryptographic technologies, etc. (Not diplomatic cables, and certainly NOT chat logs, as evidenced here.).
42 USC 2274 - Communications of classified data done with the intent to injure the US or to secure advantage to a foreign state. (Nope, doesn't apply to Wired either.)
42 USC 2275 - Receipt of restricted information done with the intent to injure the US or to secure advantage to a foreign state. (I don't think chat logs really count here.)
42 USC 2277 - Where US employee discloses restricted information to one without authorization to receive it. (Doesn't apply to Wired - they're not a US employee).
50 USC 783 - Where US employee discloses information to an agent of a foreign government or a Communist organization. (Again, Wired doesn't apply - they're not a US employee)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/433641.stm
FTA: "Up to 3.5m people have died of starvation in North Korea since 1995 and up to 300,000 have fled over the border to China, a Seoul-based charity says." The article itself was written in 1999. So 3.5 million people are estimated to have died in NK in 4 years due to a famine. I'm no mathematician, but that's a lot more than 2 million in 9 years.
I don't think you'd say such things about North Korea if you know the magnitude of how bad it is there.
That's not a search or a seizure and thus does not violate the text of the law.
Yes - a state with no secrets and a state with total secrets. Those are the ONLY two choices possible. I'm sorry, but isn't this a false dichotomy fallacy? Is it not possible that a state might be open with regards to some things and be closed with some other things? You're falling into exactly the same position Floyd Abrams noted in his article - that the world must necessarily be black and white - absolute secrecy or absolute transparency.
I'm calling North Korea the rogue state. I'm calling China the country that might be negotiated with to pressure the rogue state.
I think Floyd Abrams hit it right on the head. The idea of any secrecy being somehow intolerable in diplomacy is a daft idea. For example, there were many diplomats working in German occupied territories in WWII who were issuing visas to Jewish refugees despite the fact that their governments instructed them not to. (For example, Ho Feng Shan, Raoul Wallenberg, etc). Would it be a good thing for these cables to be released to the public? What about secret negotiations with a government who doesn't want to publicly take actions to pressure a rogue state (say, China and North Korea?). There's a lot of discreteness that is needed in diplomacy that must be done in secret. The mentality that any secrecy is inherently wrong is counterproductive, to say the least.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html
Here's the link to the statute.
And as far as your "200 years of law and court decisions", pretty much every lawyer and judge realizes that the Alien & Sedition law was a really bad law 200 years later.
I'm an attorney and I say [citation needed].
Despite the fact that I carry no burden of proof to show you're full of it, I will cite you this:
42 USC 2000aa - Privacy Protection Act
(a) Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or
(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.
You don't see how it might set a bad precedent allowing government to seize evidence held by news organizations and journalists?
I am a native Chinese speaker who learned English (albeit at a fairly young age). I am now in my late 20s and I still have some problems with the grammar. I think the biggest problem that Chinese speakers have in English is with regards to past/present/future tenses and also for plurals. In Chinese, there's no such thing as tenses or plurals, so I always get confused with stuff like subject-verb agreement or sentences that use have/has.
Chinese people do have dictionaries, you know. Every (modern) Chinese dictionary I've ever seen have two sections - one keyed towards a Pinyin pronounciation (then arranged by accent, and finally arranged by something like the number of strokes in a character) or one keyed towards the written character itself (selecting the radical of a character and then arranged by stroke order of the word).
I don't think the difference is as great as you'd think. Most Chinese typists I know use some sort of input means that allows them to type the pinyin (like typing English) and then select a character corresponding to the pinyin from a list (done with a number at the end, so the hand never leaves the keyboard). It's actually not too bad, especially for a seasoned typist who knows exactly what they are typing and what the list will turn out to be for the characters. In addition, every Chinese input software I've ever seen also autocorrects the wording and grammar, making the whole thing even faster.
Younger Chinese folks, like my cousins, are especially adept at this. My cousins are wickedly fast on inputting Chinese with their phones.
I'm seeing a lot of the clothes with integrated technological bits and I always wonder one thing: Is this washable? From the looks of it, these things use removable solar panels. If someone forgets to remove them, I'm guessing you wind up with a $920 dollar pair of regular pants that looks ugly to boot. Let's face it, if you're stupid enough to shell out $920 bucks for these things, you probably aren't the sharpest bowling ball on the rack and you probably will forget to take them out when you wash it.
There's a brain disorder that causes people to be unable to recognize human faces. I wonder if the uncanny valley effect works on them, because clearly they are missing that survival function that you noted.
For me, it was his mouth that seemed way off. Somehow, the motion of the lips moving either seems to be off-sync with the sound, or exaggeratedly tight-lipped.
Hey, if I can get liquor 3 times a day, I'd be pretty happy myself.