When they claim that the robot was a hoax bomb attempt, instead of admitting that the cops were too stupid to tell the difference between a toy and a bomb.
I tried to post this earlier (guess I was too slow).
But, considering that Google specifically said they would be looking into this later, that means:
In the (paraphrased) words of Coots and Gillespie:
They are making a list, And checking it twice; gonna find out who's naughty and nice"
Yes, I want a desk that I have to totally replace every time I upgrade my PC.
Yes, I want a desk surface that I should not eat on, put heavy items (stapler, phone, stack of 100 DVDS).
Yes, I want to pay all that extra money for an under the desk system that projects things onto a clear, fragile screen instead of simply using moding a Kinect or even the ThinkGeek Bluetooth Laser Virtual Keyboard that I place on top of a regular desk.
The only good thing about this idea is giving me a huge screen, like the movies/tv shows always have hackers using.
ISPs are like tollbooths, not car manufactures. An infected computer is like a drunk driver.
This ruling basically says that tollbooth attendants are not required to stop drunk drivers from driving drunk.
While I would say that this is true, barring any specific law, I also see that such a law would be a good idea. Governments could easily pass a law that required tollbooth operators to refuse to let drunk drivers get on their highway. Such a law would not be a bad law. I see few reasonable objections to it.
As such, I would state that while without a law, ISP's should not be legally required to stop infected computers from using them, it should be quite easy for a government to pass such a law, and that law would be:
The grenades can be variable loads. That includes flechette ammo (a staple of sci-fi - which can be poisoned/drugged) and nonlethal (beanbags, taser shotgun rounds, or pepper spray gas grenades) as well as various types of explosives (including one designed to open doors without damaging those inside).
To my mind, this capability is in fact far more important than the 'shoot behind walls' factor. Honestly, for $35,000 you can carry around something capable of blowing UP the wall and the people behind it.
The soap's main deadly effect is to breed antibiotic resistant super-bacteria.
These bacteria will not discriminate against those of us smart enough to avoid overuse of antibiotics.
You are not safe.
A plug in to detect plugin changes and ask to remove them?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Of course, the pop up should have an optional auto-cancel itself if you don't respond to it within 5 seconds.
to identify the product as belong to a specific company.
It is an advantage when a company has a good reputation - it lets people know that you can trust this tablet PC because Apple made it (if you like Apple.)
Giving Facebook a trademark is kind of like giving Betamax, "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", or "Adolf Hitler"
I agree that a pocket knife would not be a problem Neither would the nail clippers they routinely take away, nor the water - I mean get real, TASTE the liquid. But it is against the rules.
I always wondered if I froze my water into a single solid block and carried it in an insulated shopping bag (like they sell at grocery stores) would the TSA confiscate it?) Probably. They only care about the exact wording of the rules when it is in their favor.
The estimated cancer rate from a TSA scanner is one in 30,million. Air Traffic control reports their are 64 million takeoffs and landing ins the USA every year. That is about 32 million flights (assuming all are domestic and one take off for every flight, - not true, many are international, so we get closer to 64 million than 32 million).
In the past 10 years, there was eactly 4 succesfull terrorist attacks that crashed a plane (all on 9/11). But three of those attacks did manage to kill some extra people (mostly firemen trying to put out the fires).
Lets be generous and assume that the terrorists manage the equivelent of 1 plane crash a year.
So with the TSA scanners in place we get about 1.06 plane loads of people with cancer each year. Without the scanners in place, assuming the terrorists more than double their rate of attempted attacks AND succeed, we get 1.00 plane load of dead passengers.
Any idiot that can highschool math can easily see that the scanners give more people cancer than they save from terrorist attack.
That is, when they have the CSI on TV "enhance the photo, show me the reflection in the car side mirror" In real life, we can not, or rather COULD NOT do that.
But with these special cameras, apparently we will be able to do it.
He was using statisical analysis. It's fairly easy to get a 90% certain detection of most forms of cheating. Most people won't consider that sufficient proof to convict a criminal, but it is surely sufficient to mail a letter to parents and require a re-rest.
If you know the answers before hand without learning the material, then you are less likely to to know which questions are harder and which are easier, and very likely to get the easy ones wrong and the hard ones right. At the same time if everyone is given the same answers then the pattern of wrong vs right is fairly obvious again.
Well, considering that the TSA is doing NOTHING at all to protect the US from real terrorists, I don't think this is worth it.
In 1995, their was a terrorist attack on the Tokyo Metro. The technique used by them would work wonders on an airplane and the TSA has taken ZERO steps to prevent anyone from using it at US airports.
In 2001 there was a mail terrorist attack using antrhax. In a controlled envrionment with recylced air, such an attack could infest literally every person on the airplane, killing them about 4 days later. If a faster acting disease was used, the plane would crash, for that extra dramatic boom. Again, the TSA has taken ZERO steps to prevent anyone from doing this.
As of 2006 (don't know about now), the TSA had taken ZERO steps to preven Surface to Air missiles used against a commercial airlines.
So NO, I don't think a terrorist would be stupid enough to do anything that the TSA would catch. The reason the 9/11 attacks worked so well was mainly because no one had ever tried it before. As soon as the U93 became aware of what was going on, they prevented the terrorists from using the 4th plane.
The TSA has not caught a SINGLE real terrorist at the gate, ever. Instead they are engaging in illegal, unwarranted (in both senses of the word), unreasonable searches of US citizens. These searches would have stopped terrorist attacks that in the past failed. They quite clearly would NOT have stopped any of the most logical, fairly cheap potential terrorist attacks.
Their searchs are simple sexual harrasments of legal citizens, they do nothing to make us safer.
But the extensive and invasive nature of the searchs do reassure fools that trust the government with their safety, instead of questioning authority.
Like the latin, small print is an obvious bad-faith action and should be disallowed.
Schools specify allowable fonts and margins, there is NO reason to let lawyers do less than a law professor.
social security/address/etc. are things that can theoretically be fixed/changed (yeah I know the US hates changing your SS#, but it could be done.) You can't change or fully recover from exposure of medical or sexual information. Medical information is likely to be embarrassing and could cost you jobs (Employers don't want to hire people that might raise their insurance rates.) Closeted Homosexuals have committed suicide when their sexual proclivities become known.
It is pretty clear to me that my priorities are in a great position. I think you need to rethink yours, as you clearly are WAY too interested in money and don't consider that other people may have far more important things on their mind than a bad credit score.
Right now, when your privacy is violated, they say "My bad" and keep on going.
We need a law that says something like:
1. For violating all non-medical, non-sexual privacy, (revealing Social Security information, bank account information, phone numbers, etc.) each incident costs the violater $100 fine per person
2. For violating medical privacy, each incident costs the violater $800 fine per person
3. For violating sexual privacy, each incident costs the violater $5,000 fine per person
Having the fines go to the EFF (to avoid spurious lawsuits)
This would be in addition to the legal right to sue for damages.
So should Facebook give you one?
And slashdot? etc. etc.
We will always need passwords.
But we need: 1) More realistic password rules. 2) Consistent password rules (either no one uses symbols like @ or everyone allows them). 3) An understanding that certain things need strong passwords (and personal information to verify), and others things can get by with weak emails - no freakin way should a movie site demand your birthdate before setting up an account.
Slashdot Mirror
When they claim that the robot was a hoax bomb attempt, instead of admitting that the cops were too stupid to tell the difference between a toy and a bomb.
I tried to post this earlier (guess I was too slow). But, considering that Google specifically said they would be looking into this later, that means: In the (paraphrased) words of Coots and Gillespie: They are making a list, And checking it twice; gonna find out who's naughty and nice"
Yes, I want a desk surface that I should not eat on, put heavy items (stapler, phone, stack of 100 DVDS).
Yes, I want to pay all that extra money for an under the desk system that projects things onto a clear, fragile screen instead of simply using moding a Kinect or even the ThinkGeek Bluetooth Laser Virtual Keyboard that I place on top of a regular desk.
The only good thing about this idea is giving me a huge screen, like the movies/tv shows always have hackers using.
Noscript, Taco with Abine, BetterPrivacy.
This ruling basically says that tollbooth attendants are not required to stop drunk drivers from driving drunk.
While I would say that this is true, barring any specific law, I also see that such a law would be a good idea. Governments could easily pass a law that required tollbooth operators to refuse to let drunk drivers get on their highway. Such a law would not be a bad law. I see few reasonable objections to it.
As such, I would state that while without a law, ISP's should not be legally required to stop infected computers from using them, it should be quite easy for a government to pass such a law, and that law would be:
a. Reasonable and proper
b. A good idea
To my mind, this capability is in fact far more important than the 'shoot behind walls' factor. Honestly, for $35,000 you can carry around something capable of blowing UP the wall and the people behind it.
The soap's main deadly effect is to breed antibiotic resistant super-bacteria. These bacteria will not discriminate against those of us smart enough to avoid overuse of antibiotics. You are not safe.
Use the DMCA in some way. Not that hard to copyright part of the file.
A plug in to detect plugin changes and ask to remove them? Sounds like a good idea to me. Of course, the pop up should have an optional auto-cancel itself if you don't respond to it within 5 seconds.
Not that difficult to code in a startup screen "X addons installed since last restart. Should I remove?"
2. They then waited for the YOUNG mice to develop symptoms of their genetic disease that simulated aging.
3. They then cured the DISEASE they had created.
Calling this curing aging is like announcing that you can raise the dead by administering adrenaline after artificially stopping someone's heart.
Call us when you can reverse aging in any creature that has not first been artifically aged. Till then, you are just blowing smoke up your own butt.
It is an advantage when a company has a good reputation - it lets people know that you can trust this tablet PC because Apple made it (if you like Apple.)
Giving Facebook a trademark is kind of like giving Betamax, "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", or "Adolf Hitler"
I agree that a pocket knife would not be a problem Neither would the nail clippers they routinely take away, nor the water - I mean get real, TASTE the liquid. But it is against the rules. I always wondered if I froze my water into a single solid block and carried it in an insulated shopping bag (like they sell at grocery stores) would the TSA confiscate it?) Probably. They only care about the exact wording of the rules when it is in their favor.
2. My keys, including a key chain bob that included a 3 inch blade.
------------
Things the TSA make ZERO attempt to find:
1. Poison Gas containers (like Sarin gas used in the 1995 Tokyo Metro terrorist attack - 13 dead)
2. Plutonium powder = dirty bomb.
--------------
Things the TSA take away:
1. Nail clippers (even from US soldiers carrying assault rifles - that the TSA agents were told were unloaded - they did not check)
2. Our dignity
3. Any reasonable definition of the words "reasonable search"
4. Our ability to stand up to government and say THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In the past 10 years, there was eactly 4 succesfull terrorist attacks that crashed a plane (all on 9/11). But three of those attacks did manage to kill some extra people (mostly firemen trying to put out the fires).
Lets be generous and assume that the terrorists manage the equivelent of 1 plane crash a year.
So with the TSA scanners in place we get about 1.06 plane loads of people with cancer each year. Without the scanners in place, assuming the terrorists more than double their rate of attempted attacks AND succeed, we get 1.00 plane load of dead passengers.
Any idiot that can highschool math can easily see that the scanners give more people cancer than they save from terrorist attack.
kids like to draw, it encourages creativity. Give them a rollup fabric case for the crayons, and they can carry them and impress the other kids
That is, when they have the CSI on TV "enhance the photo, show me the reflection in the car side mirror" In real life, we can not, or rather COULD NOT do that. But with these special cameras, apparently we will be able to do it.
If you know the answers before hand without learning the material, then you are less likely to to know which questions are harder and which are easier, and very likely to get the easy ones wrong and the hard ones right. At the same time if everyone is given the same answers then the pattern of wrong vs right is fairly obvious again.
In 1995, their was a terrorist attack on the Tokyo Metro. The technique used by them would work wonders on an airplane and the TSA has taken ZERO steps to prevent anyone from using it at US airports.
In 2001 there was a mail terrorist attack using antrhax. In a controlled envrionment with recylced air, such an attack could infest literally every person on the airplane, killing them about 4 days later. If a faster acting disease was used, the plane would crash, for that extra dramatic boom. Again, the TSA has taken ZERO steps to prevent anyone from doing this.
As of 2006 (don't know about now), the TSA had taken ZERO steps to preven Surface to Air missiles used against a commercial airlines.
So NO, I don't think a terrorist would be stupid enough to do anything that the TSA would catch. The reason the 9/11 attacks worked so well was mainly because no one had ever tried it before. As soon as the U93 became aware of what was going on, they prevented the terrorists from using the 4th plane.
The TSA has not caught a SINGLE real terrorist at the gate, ever. Instead they are engaging in illegal, unwarranted (in both senses of the word), unreasonable searches of US citizens. These searches would have stopped terrorist attacks that in the past failed. They quite clearly would NOT have stopped any of the most logical, fairly cheap potential terrorist attacks.
Their searchs are simple sexual harrasments of legal citizens, they do nothing to make us safer.
But the extensive and invasive nature of the searchs do reassure fools that trust the government with their safety, instead of questioning authority.
Like the latin, small print is an obvious bad-faith action and should be disallowed. Schools specify allowable fonts and margins, there is NO reason to let lawyers do less than a law professor.
Judges don't want the loser of every case suing for it.
It is pretty clear to me that my priorities are in a great position. I think you need to rethink yours, as you clearly are WAY too interested in money and don't consider that other people may have far more important things on their mind than a bad credit score.
Right now, when your privacy is violated, they say "My bad" and keep on going. We need a law that says something like: 1. For violating all non-medical, non-sexual privacy, (revealing Social Security information, bank account information, phone numbers, etc.) each incident costs the violater $100 fine per person 2. For violating medical privacy, each incident costs the violater $800 fine per person 3. For violating sexual privacy, each incident costs the violater $5,000 fine per person Having the fines go to the EFF (to avoid spurious lawsuits) This would be in addition to the legal right to sue for damages.
But we need: 1) More realistic password rules. 2) Consistent password rules (either no one uses symbols like @ or everyone allows them). 3) An understanding that certain things need strong passwords (and personal information to verify), and others things can get by with weak emails - no freakin way should a movie site demand your birthdate before setting up an account.
Amish people more likely to be virgins.