With the average male thinking about sex every seven minutes, I don't know if their brain should be controling a machine that goes Mach X
It is a popular Sci-Fi concept that female pilots will come to dominate.
This could be the start...:\
Why the sad face? As far as I'm aware, the same research that said that women think about sex less also said that it depended on the frequency with which they had it. The less she has, the more she thinks about it, and vice versa. So if that's the reason why women come to dominate in piloting...
You are being bombared with deadly radiation right now! Coming from the ground, objects in your home, and worst, from mankind's eternal nemesis, the Sun itself. Please flee your home screaming and head for your nearest all-lead fallout shelter!
Kind of a nit, but it wasn't really a robot dog, it was a cyborg dog with a real live organic dog brain that thought it was a normal dog. A much sadder creature.
What? Microsoft implement conversion to a non-proprietary and/or non-MS format in such a shoddy manner that it makes their own format look pristine and wonderful and the other formats bulky and bloated?
It's a good idea, but how much will you give me for keeping your trust? Or is this "all stick, no carrot"? I just don't know that honesty is really a growth industry.
I already gave. Isn't that the point? I give you money and my vote so you keep the trust. I've already given something. If you break that trust, then it's stick time.
But really -- keep my trust, and you'll probably get my vote and my money next time. What more do you want?
Your post has me thinking, and mentally crafting a letter to whoever is the one to run against the guy I want out.
"I will vote for you, and contribute to your campaign. If you betray my trust, I will vote for your opponent in the next election, and contribute twice as much to his campaign as I did to yours."
Maybe. I feel icky about money in politics, but it is there, and it's more important to me to not get screwed than to attain some ideal society where money and politics never intertwine.
But you're absolutely right -- until we start punishing the elected officials for screwing us, then nothing will ever change. Alas, I fear they have learned that they can get away with it too deeply, and moreover I fear they may be right.
"Right to privacy" is just the affirmative way of saying "Right to not be unreasonably searched".
As to what is reasonable -- well, the second half of the Ammendment specifies that pretty clearly, I think. You present an affidavit before a judge, and he decides if the search is reasonable. That the FBI wants to avoid having their searches suseptible to being deemed "unreasonable" tells me all I need to know about their motives.
Also, make sure not to forget the 9th which makes it clear that the lack of the enumeration of a right has nothing to do with its existence. Your 10th Ammendment argument basically assumes this, so good job.
/., google news, and other sources should all have ample documentation of how well that clause works to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism investigations.
Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.
You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
When you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, you want to watch them for a while without tipping them off so that you can grab all of them.
If you're genuinely dealing with terrorists, then you should have information that indicates that you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, otherwise how do you know you are genuinely dealing with terrorists? In that case, you should be able to get a God-damned WARRANT.
That's what pisses me off so much. They can already get all the power to search, seize, investigate, whatever they want, all without telling the suspect -- if they have reason to suspect the person is actually a criminal. Therefore, the only possible reason they could want to get the same powers, only without needing a warrant is to use those powers on people who they have no reasonable evidence indicating that they are criminals.
That's you and me.
That's the whole reason a judge is supposed to be involved -- to decide if the police are actually following a lead, and thus the search is reasonable, or if they are just fishing around in the lives of citizens looking for dirt.
And police abuses of other laws and powers are documented. What makes you think this law will be different? What makes you think the public will cry loud enough to get the law revoked? We already cried loud enough to stop the passage of PATRIOT II -- but they didn't care, did they?
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
Which is all I know, so I welcome more thorough and educated analysis.:)
It's a variant on the strategy used in the "prisoner's dilemna"*. In that game, and here, you have a choice to make and so does your opponent. You can choose to try to benefit only yourself at the expense of your opponent, but if your opponent does the same you both suffer. If you cooperate, you both get some benefit, but less than if you choose to take and your opponent chooses to cooperate.
How do you get to the cooperative state? If you volunteer to cooperate, your opponent can take advantage of you. You have to discourage them from taking the larger reward. The solution is to do whatever they did last, every time. If they cooperate, you start to do as well. If they don't, you don't next time. If your opponent is also rational (a huge assumption in game theory, which is why it's theory:P) then eventually you will settle into a mutually beneficial cooperative state.
So yeah, if Brazil's goal is to get the USA to stop fingerprinting, then this is a decent strategy. Not that it will work (see parenthetical about the assumptions of game theory:P).
I wonder what would happen if we did this with everything? What if we killed 3,000 of the Taliban and then stopped? What if, instead of bulldozing a village after a cafe bombing, Israel stopped after they'd killed the twenty or so militants needed to match the number dead? What message would it send? No, it would never work. There's more going on than a single binary decision. There are too many varied interests involved on both sides for them to resist the temptation to try to grab more for themselves. But once again, that's why it's theory!
* Ironically, the strategy does no good in the actual "prisoner's dilemna" situation, since it only works on repeated instances of the same choice.
Between the mystery of seeing a truly alien landscape from the ground, and the symbolism of what humankind can accomplish when we set our mind to it, I find this terribly inspiring.
Next you'll tell me you don't see what's so beautiful about a woman's eyes... They're just a white jelly-filled ball covered in mucous, after all.
There's more to beauty than just the photons hitting your cornea.
It seems that some governments are waking up to this idea. 5 Euros shipped overseas isn't necessarily better than 10 Euros spent locally, especially when that 10 Euros goes toward developing the local technology industry.
That's what irks me. The benefit of outsourcing to India is being put directly into the company's bottom line, not passed on to the consumer (who now has no job).
Globalization would make me so much happier -- it does have the potential to even out gross economic disparities -- if I didn't see the whole process being manipulated by the wealthy for their own benefit.
I don't know how much sugar you put in your coffee, but I somehow doubt it's as much as the 170 calories worth of high fructose corn syrup you get from a can of Coke.
A lot of people get their caffeine from soda. Perhaps this has something to do with it?
How many people are going to give an honest answer the question "Do you regularly break the law?"
Do you think this number of people would be increased or decreased by conspicuous searches for and lawsuits against breakers of said law?
Seriously, they might as well said "And our results have a confidence of 95%, based on the answers to the question 'No, really, are you telling the truth? You can be honest.'"
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the Irish stored potatoes as food cannot be blamed on the English.
Yes it can, because the English took all the non-potato food!
It's not like the Irish just loved potatoes, and got rid of all the wheat and such because they didn't like it.
I don't know... You seem to be pretty stupid, but you still understood it was a joke. I'm not worried.
It is a popular Sci-Fi concept that female pilots will come to dominate.
This could be the start...
Why the sad face?
As far as I'm aware, the same research that said that women think about sex less also said that it depended on the frequency with which they had it. The less she has, the more she thinks about it, and vice versa. So if that's the reason why women come to dominate in piloting...
Ever wanted to date a pilot?
It is a popular Sci-Fi concept that female pilots will come to dominate.
This could be the start...
You are being bombared with deadly radiation right now! Coming from the ground, objects in your home, and worst, from mankind's eternal nemesis, the Sun itself. Please flee your home screaming and head for your nearest all-lead fallout shelter!
We'll call you out when it's safe.
Kind of a nit, but it wasn't really a robot dog, it was a cyborg dog with a real live organic dog brain that thought it was a normal dog. A much sadder creature.
What? Microsoft implement conversion to a non-proprietary and/or non-MS format in such a shoddy manner that it makes their own format look pristine and wonderful and the other formats bulky and bloated?
I'm shocked. Why would they do that?
It's much easier to make sure that the oil producing countries stay in line by kicking the most belligerent one in the teeth.
Most belligerent, and also second most oil rich. Don't forget that part.
Which leads, once again, to the obvious conclusion: We need more choices.
It's a good idea, but how much will you give me for keeping your trust? Or is this "all stick, no carrot"? I just don't know that honesty is really a growth industry.
I already gave. Isn't that the point? I give you money and my vote so you keep the trust. I've already given something. If you break that trust, then it's stick time.
But really -- keep my trust, and you'll probably get my vote and my money next time. What more do you want?
Your post has me thinking, and mentally crafting a letter to whoever is the one to run against the guy I want out.
"I will vote for you, and contribute to your campaign. If you betray my trust, I will vote for your opponent in the next election, and contribute twice as much to his campaign as I did to yours."
Maybe. I feel icky about money in politics, but it is there, and it's more important to me to not get screwed than to attain some ideal society where money and politics never intertwine.
But you're absolutely right -- until we start punishing the elected officials for screwing us, then nothing will ever change. Alas, I fear they have learned that they can get away with it too deeply, and moreover I fear they may be right.
"Right to privacy" is just the affirmative way of saying "Right to not be unreasonably searched".
As to what is reasonable -- well, the second half of the Ammendment specifies that pretty clearly, I think. You present an affidavit before a judge, and he decides if the search is reasonable. That the FBI wants to avoid having their searches suseptible to being deemed "unreasonable" tells me all I need to know about their motives.
Also, make sure not to forget the 9th which makes it clear that the lack of the enumeration of a right has nothing to do with its existence. Your 10th Ammendment argument basically assumes this, so good job.
/., google news, and other sources should all have ample documentation of how well that clause works to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism investigations.
Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.
You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
When you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, you want to watch them for a while without tipping them off so that you can grab all of them.
If you're genuinely dealing with terrorists, then you should have information that indicates that you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, otherwise how do you know you are genuinely dealing with terrorists? In that case, you should be able to get a God-damned WARRANT.
That's what pisses me off so much. They can already get all the power to search, seize, investigate, whatever they want, all without telling the suspect -- if they have reason to suspect the person is actually a criminal. Therefore, the only possible reason they could want to get the same powers, only without needing a warrant is to use those powers on people who they have no reasonable evidence indicating that they are criminals.
That's you and me.
That's the whole reason a judge is supposed to be involved -- to decide if the police are actually following a lead, and thus the search is reasonable, or if they are just fishing around in the lives of citizens looking for dirt.
And police abuses of other laws and powers are documented. What makes you think this law will be different? What makes you think the public will cry loud enough to get the law revoked? We already cried loud enough to stop the passage of PATRIOT II -- but they didn't care, did they?
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
Which is all I know, so I welcome more thorough and educated analysis. :)
:P) then eventually you will settle into a mutually beneficial cooperative state.
:P).
It's a variant on the strategy used in the "prisoner's dilemna"*. In that game, and here, you have a choice to make and so does your opponent. You can choose to try to benefit only yourself at the expense of your opponent, but if your opponent does the same you both suffer. If you cooperate, you both get some benefit, but less than if you choose to take and your opponent chooses to cooperate.
How do you get to the cooperative state? If you volunteer to cooperate, your opponent can take advantage of you. You have to discourage them from taking the larger reward. The solution is to do whatever they did last, every time. If they cooperate, you start to do as well. If they don't, you don't next time. If your opponent is also rational (a huge assumption in game theory, which is why it's theory
So yeah, if Brazil's goal is to get the USA to stop fingerprinting, then this is a decent strategy. Not that it will work (see parenthetical about the assumptions of game theory
I wonder what would happen if we did this with everything? What if we killed 3,000 of the Taliban and then stopped? What if, instead of bulldozing a village after a cafe bombing, Israel stopped after they'd killed the twenty or so militants needed to match the number dead? What message would it send? No, it would never work. There's more going on than a single binary decision. There are too many varied interests involved on both sides for them to resist the temptation to try to grab more for themselves. But once again, that's why it's theory!
* Ironically, the strategy does no good in the actual "prisoner's dilemna" situation, since it only works on repeated instances of the same choice.
Heh. Okay, so 5 Euros sent overseas is not nearly as good as 10 Euros spent locally when 6 of those Euros are going to come right back! :)
Between the mystery of seeing a truly alien landscape from the ground, and the symbolism of what humankind can accomplish when we set our mind to it, I find this terribly inspiring.
Next you'll tell me you don't see what's so beautiful about a woman's eyes... They're just a white jelly-filled ball covered in mucous, after all.
There's more to beauty than just the photons hitting your cornea.
it's called getting a collar
Care to explain that? Google isn't much help on this subject...
Trolling the low-id-ers, I mean. Looks like you got a bunch of bites... including me. Shit!
It seems that some governments are waking up to this idea. 5 Euros shipped overseas isn't necessarily better than 10 Euros spent locally, especially when that 10 Euros goes toward developing the local technology industry.
Or bigger bonuses for executives?
That's what irks me. The benefit of outsourcing to India is being put directly into the company's bottom line, not passed on to the consumer (who now has no job).
Globalization would make me so much happier -- it does have the potential to even out gross economic disparities -- if I didn't see the whole process being manipulated by the wealthy for their own benefit.
But I think it's already been reserved for the new web kiosk/PortaPotty that's in development...
I don't know how much sugar you put in your coffee, but I somehow doubt it's as much as the 170 calories worth of high fructose corn syrup you get from a can of Coke.
A lot of people get their caffeine from soda. Perhaps this has something to do with it?
How many people are going to give an honest answer the question "Do you regularly break the law?"
Do you think this number of people would be increased or decreased by conspicuous searches for and lawsuits against breakers of said law?
Seriously, they might as well said "And our results have a confidence of 95%, based on the answers to the question 'No, really, are you telling the truth? You can be honest.'"