He basically says that there is no reason in space to stop.
That is false.
It is a VERY different trip out of the deep gravity hole, filled with atmosphere that we call earth than it is within space.
The best reason to stop in space is to SWITCH crafts.
Specifically, you need a high G (3 or , aerodynamically sound, craft to get out of the atmosphere.
Once you get out there, you generally want a low G (actually, One G would be perfect), space ship, and you don't care that much about shape. (radiation becoems important however).
We generally deal with this now either two ways:
1. Put a smaller ship inside a throw-away one,
2. give a high initial thrust, and plan it out so that it goes where we want it to without any additional thrust.
These ideas are rather primitive, cheap, and silly. A better idea is to launch ship components up to the space station, build them there, then launch the second ship from there. This gets rid of the size constraint of the method 1, and allows powered flight for much quicker delivery, negating the huge disadvantage of method 2. Yes, this will be more expensive, but it lets us do things we could not at all using the current methods.
To give someone an address, email, or other detail specific information.
If you say it, they must hear it well, remember it and write it down.
If you text it, they have it exactly as you wrote it. No danger of mishearing, forgetting or losing what they wrote it on.
The fact that there is reason for them to get the benefit of being rich DOES NOT mean it is not a benefit.
Just because there is a valid reason for them to have something does not mean we should give it to them for free.
But that is all beside the point.
Your main problem is that you assume proportionate happens naturall.
It does NOT.
Look, here is a simple example - the rule of thumb for housing in suburban areas is 2.5 times your annual salary. (not valid in 'prime markets like NY, LA, San Fran) I.E. You make 100k, you should pay no more than 250k for your house.
The majority of people living in the US follow this rule. UNLESS you make more than 1 million a year. If you make more than 1 million a year, your housing costs tend to be LESS than one year's salary.
Similarly, as you get richer, your use of government services do NOT stay in the same proportionate range.
Just as your housing costs go down, your use of government service SKYROCKETS up.
We just want rich people to pay their fair share for the government services they use.
Because richer people BENEFIT more from the government, even if they buy NOTHING.
They get greater access to government members, why YES I will see the CEO of GM, even though he did not have an appointment.
They get greater benefits from the government (if you own bear stearns and go bankrupt, you get a bailout. If you own a deli, you get nothing)
You get more use of police and fire men - i.e. if someone robs you of/burns down 50% of your net worth and it is $100 the police say "We'll call you." If the same thing happens when you own $100 million they get RIGHT on it.
You get more us the roads etc and other services. If you own UPS, chances are you are responsible for say 1% of the damage to the roads, that our taxes pay to maintain but if you own a one man bicycle delivery company then you are responsible for a billionth of a percentage.
You get more protection via the military. If say China were to conquer the US, chances are they will leave most of the low end people alone. But they will confiscate huge amounts of wealth from the rich.
You get better government rules (mainly because of things like better acceess) the government protects the rich people hiring illegal aliens but not the poor people whose jobse they stole.
Due to economies of scale, it is REALLY easy for rich people to avoid paying their fair share. They can do things like invest in tax shelters, buy tax free bonds, etc. Poor people theoretically could do the same thing but the fees to do these kinds of things exceed their meager savings. I know people that move to Texas solely to take advantage of favorable tax laws, then take month long vacations in NYC.
You are very ignorant about the way the world works. You think it is simple, but it isn't. The world is a VERY complex place and if you have money you can take advantage of the various complexities. Poor peole usually are stuck with whatever hand they are dealt and don't have time, let alone the money to research how to deal with the various complexities.
Progressive taxes make a HUGE amount of sense because they recognize this fact. The rich benefit more so they should pay a higher percentage.
While I don't disagree that our education system has collapsed I don't think that is the cause of the loss of civility. (Education has failed mainly due to the local control in my opinion - with local control you get different systems, some of which are great, and others suck. For example, religious people insist on teaching creationism.)
The main cause of loss of civility (which is partly real and partly false memory) are two fold:
1. Population increase (real loss). It is easy to be nice when there are few other people around. The more people that are around, the more times they will get in your way/annoy you. For example, if you are driving and you are cut off one time, no big deal. If you are driving and you get cut off twelve times on the way to work, it pisses you off and you start thinking of 'getting even'. It snowballs quickly.
2.Expansion of people that 'count'. (memory loss) I.e. There used to be a huge amount of incivility that was ignored. There was a time when using the 'n' word was considered civil. The racial stuff is only a small part of it - class prejudice was really huge. If you were not rich enough to own your own property than those that owned land/horses/etc. were incredibally rude to you, and you yourself could be incredibally rude back to them. They excused their rudeness by saying you were not people of quality and did not 'count', while excusing your rudeness by saying "I told you he was a person of low quality". Similarly, when men politely held a door for woman but did not let them into medical school, this was considered being 'civil'. It wasn't.
Re:Back in the day...
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The US is the ONLY developed religious country in the world.
The US consistently has much HIGHER number of religious people than all other developed people.
It also has much LESS civility in society.
Yeah, I know you personally like to engage in wishful thinking, that religion makes people nicer.
I suggest you take a look at
a. History.
b. The middle east (the single highest concentration of religious people outside of Vatican City
There is a clear relationship between faith and values.
Unfortunately, it is NOT the one you wish was true. Instead, there are it is the opposite. The more religious you are, the more you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong (after all, they don't go to your church), and the less civil you are to the unbelievers.
Stolen = TAKEN and not useable by someone else. Learn english.
Using something without permission without moving it is not stealing.
You are correct that using it may decrease the availability for them, but that is NOT stealing. Similarly when I violate a products license it is NOT theft. I may be using it illegally but it aint theft.
If I enter your grandparents house turn on your TV and change the channel, it may disrupt your grandparents old VCR set to record their favorite channel.
But I have NOT stolen anything.
One of the major problems you guys have is the fact that you are calling everythign theft. When I hit you and you bleed it may still be a crime but it is NOT theft of your blood. Saying it is makes you look really bad, it does NOT convince us you are correct.
Stop trying to misuse words and you might actually make sense. You might be right, but misusing the language makes you sound foolish, it does NOT convince anyone with enough brains to see through a rather silly ploy.
As for that particular case, that is a technological and social problem. You want to solve it fine do so:
Pass a law that it is illegal to sell any device without a Random password installed. Have the password written on the inside of the box.
But don't try to arrest people doing something that they are CLEARLY not doing.
1. The door does not act in your example, the router DOES act. A more accurate analogy would be:
I asked your door to open for me AND IT DID OPEN. Not impossible, as many businnssess have doors that automatically open.
2. You had people STEAL things instead of simply enter the house and watch TV. We are describing someone enter the wifi connection and use it to connect to the internet, NOT take other things.
Stop trying to ADD real crimes that we are NOT discussing.
God, is it THAT hard to pay attention to our points or do you just ignore people that disagree with you and make up vile lies?
If I were the tellers boss and she attempted to press charges over that one penny, I would fire her.
But assuming you were right and the cop did arrest them, then:
If I were the judge in the case against the man, I would order him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Then I would throw the cop and the prosecutor in jail for contempt of court and abuse of process.
YOU may be stupid enough to waste our overburdened police's courts time and money on crap like this, but I doubt any other person involved in the legal system is, unless they were out to get the man that tried to get a single penny.
That would be true except that copyright law specifically states that it IS legal to copy small amounts of data.
Worse, you stupid example confounds the issue by using additional felonies, namely brandishing a gun. Also a bit is the smallest possible bit of data, so your example should use a cent, not a dollar. If he had said Byte, then Dollar would make sense.
Try it again without your blatant errors and you get:
Person goes into a bank WITHOUT a gun. Hands the teller a note saying "Give me a penny of the banks money NOW!". Please pay attention to the fact that NO threat was made (that would be another crime, just like brandishing the gun.)
A claim that this is not a robbery would in fact hold up pretty well in court. Even if the teller gave him a penny.
The attorney that concentrates on IP Law seems to know a LOT more than you do, mublestheclown.
I totally agree with you. This thing does not look at ALL like R2D2.
R2D2's key characteristers are: Round, dome head with no neck, and 3 legs.
This creature is not round, has a square monitor for a head on a neck, and has multiple wheels attached directly to the base (no legs).
What you describe is NOT terrorism. It is not mentioned in the book becasue it is NOT considered terrorism in any way shape or form.
Nations attacking other nations is called WAR, not terrorism. You have to be pretty moronic to think they are the same thing.
What you are doing is a rather nasty, stupid kind of argument called Guilt by Association. More people hate terroism than hate war (and those that hate terrorism hate it more than they hate war.
Because you dislike ware more, you are trying to convince other people to hate war by RELABELLING it as terrorism.
But words have real meaning, they are not your play thing to twist and lie and change in order to trick fools into thinking like you do.
War may not be the best thing in the world, but it is NOT terrorism. There are RADICAL differences between the two concepts, and those differeces are NOT insignificant. Specifically, the major difference between war and terrorism is that terroirsts actively target non-combatants, while war actively targets combatants. Yeah, you may not think that is a big deal, but to someone that is female, a child, or actively refuses to join the military, it is a VERY big deal.
There IS a clear, simple definition of terrorism. I paraphrase, from the CIA:
A terroist action is an action in which combatants actively TARGET non-combatants with physical harm (i.e. civilians, not other soldiers), for political purposes.
Please note that this definition of terrorism:
1. Does NOT include the majority of rebels, freedom fighters, or other revolitionaries thar are respected.
2. Does not include wars.
3. DOES include the CIA itself, as they have admitted to targetting noncombatants in the past.
4. Does include most famous terrorist actions, including the crashing into the World Trade Center.
5. Does not include certain famous actions called terroism by the media, such as dingy attack on the USS Cole. (Cripes man, trying to seek a warship should not be called terrorism. It should be called STUPID.)
6. Does leave certain things to argue about, such as the craahing of the plane into the Pentagon. The pentagon is a military target and the civilians on the plane could be called 'ancillary casulaties', as opposed to being the target of the attack.
This definition does not in any way that I can tell have a geopolitical agenda. As it specifically describes certain actions done by the agency that created it as terrorist actions.
The entire point of the voting MACHINES, instead of a s simple running tally like you describe is to catch fraud.
Major, SIMPLY methods of catching fraud include the following:
1. Comparing SEPERATE counters for total votes cast with counters for each of the possible candidates.
2. Comparing hourly totals, so that total for each hour equal total of all hours.
3. Comparing individual machine totals with total for all in a specific site.
4. Comparing totals for all sites with the grand total for a voting district.
5. Comparing all totals for voting districts with a grand total for a state.
Moreover, often there are different things to total, for example if there is a select candidate and a confirm, that the totals for the confirms don't exceed the total for the total votes.
It is a method similar to double entry book keeping. This way, no you can't just change a single figure to cheat an election, you need to change a WHOLE BUNCH of figures.
I don't see the problem with that either. So what if it breeds with natural plants. Evolution works. If the bio-engineered stuff is hardy enough, let the plants evolve using it. If not, it will be replaced by plants that are not 'infected'.
Honestly I find people like you to be no better than PETA.
Famine, Disease, War are all SOLUTIONS, not problems. They are God's (or nature's if you are an athiest) tough love cure for overpopulation. Any biologist will tell you that each and every one of them occures in some animals besides humans when they outgrow their current habitat.
Famine - not enough food for the amount of people you have. Disease - anyone doctor will tell you that higher population = more disease. You reduce population size and disease rates drop like a tech stock in early 2008. War, well, it solves one and only one problem - overpopulation.
But even if you can't see the logic in that, think about what real vat food production would mean. The ability to grow meet in a vat would allow for the following:
Growing it in an antiseptic area, free of things like say Mad Cow Disease
Quicker grow rate, for the cost of less feed, (Don't have to help the animal grow bones, tendons, brains, etc.) allowing us to make more meat, cheaper, feeding more people, reducing hunger.
Not all people ahve problems with gene modified plants. Not even all liberals. Despite the conservative desire to classify everyone that does not follow their ridiculous ideas as radical fools, there are quite a few people out there that are pretty liberal but not lunatics. I myself enjoy steak very much, but if given the choice between a real animal steak and a vat grown one, would choose a vat grown. I eat gene modified plants all the time. I don't see the difference between 'natural Corn' (that the american indians bread up from things the size of a kid's pinkie to things the size of an adult's forearm.) and gene modified plants.
When they say "VAT" that means it is only a sample of the animal, in a giant tub (vat means a tub/barrell). It has no brain, legs, arms, etc. It is more like a cross between an animal and bacteria than a real animal.
Bus stops do not always have signs, beyond advertisements that do not in any way indicate that it is a bus stop. Samscafe does NOT in any way indicate it is'free'. How am I to know that Samscafe is a free wifi, but that CharliesPlace is not?
In fact, the Bus stop is the BEST example I have thought of.
1. The absence of a password is equievelent to the absence of a WALL. I mean, cripes, you could at least put up a password of 123456.
2. I am talking about using the wifi to get to the internet, not into someone's files, so it is in effect a transportation network entree point, just like a bus stop.
People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for their actions, not blame others for their total inability to do simple, basic precautions that any 5 year old knows to do. This is not something that requires technical skill at all, it is simply putting a PASSWORD on your system.
1. For rude "we want you to register but you have no desire to do so", I suggest using a generic password for all. This counts for anything that does not ask for address/social/phone/name.
2. For things that really need a password, I suggest the following method. Instead of coming up with a single password, come up with a pass word RULE SYSTEM.
Example: Last letter of website name (before.com./.org/etc.) plus 2nd to last letter of my username, plus their numbers in the alphabet plust the nonsense phrase C8t_f1re
So using that rule, my password for slashdot.com would be tpC8t_f1re. My password for fark would be koC8t_f1re
This way, all you need to do is remember a single rule, and let the web sites remember your username for you. Someone that learns your password (like say the sys-admin for work) will not know it for anything else.
The point you are missing is that it is NOT at ALL like entering an unlocked house.
It is like entering an unlocked BUILDING.
When you see an wifi connection, all you have is a name. You DON'T know if it is someone's house, a bank, or a bus stop, or a church.
CHARITIES EXIST. There are places that legally leave open a wifi connection for anyone to use. Similarly, Churches exist. They open there doors to everyone.
It is NO more wrong to enter an open wifi connection and use it, then it is to step out of the rain into an open building.
It is the responisbility of the OWNER of the building/wifi to lock the doors/connection if they don't want people to use it.
This way it lets the wonderful people offering free access (like say the co-op where I buy my food has an open wifi connection, or the church across the street) do so without hinderance.
You want privacy, you have an ISP contract that prevents other people from using your wifi? Fine it is YOUR responsibility to protect it, not ours.
The charities have the right not to be forced to go to ridiculous lengths to tell people that 'yes it is OK to use us'. Similarly innocent people have the RIGHT to assume it is a charity if you are so moronic as to not even put a lock on the door or ANY sign at all that it is not a charitable free wifi.
The standard plans for buildign Solar Thermal generators include heat storage devices. More importantly, in the areas where these devices are created, what almost ALWAYS happens is that during periods of peak demand, the power output is highest. I.E. During 9-5, when businesses are up and running and air conditioners are up and running , the sun is the strongest.
Then they actually STORE up heat during the peak demand periods, to use in the lower demand period, called night.
Using current technology, solar thermal power plants are almost cheap enough to displace fossil fuels, at least for the southern half of the country.
I would agree that nuclear is probably going to be neccessary for the parts of the country that don't get enough sun. But geothermal is WAY too expensive, except in extremely rare locations.
Chip and Pin has been SHOWN to be insecure. The information is passed unencrypted. You can buy chip reader on ebay, modify it in less than 5 minutes to record the chip and pin information, then set it loose in the wild. Come by and 'service' it when the owner is not looking and you get all the info
For less than 100 pounds, you can start harvesting all the chip-pin info you want.
The industry could solve this issue easily, simply by encrypting the data within the reader. This would force criminals to pay to build/buy some kind of 'theft chip', instead of simply having to learn how to reprogram them.
I've tried Eharmony, but I found it did not work well for me.
Lots of interest, but not much action. I think the women were all considering me as 'nice back up date', not first run material, but don't know because I got no real feedback.
I would agree that lying includes the 'unintentional' misrepresentations, for me that is part of the problem
But another problem is the quiet obvious 'shallowness' of the dating pool.
The problem exists in both men and women, but it causes more problem for women than for men. When men are extremely shallow (i.e. set standards too high for their potential dates), they tend to get no first dates. Men are forced to either lie or widen their search requirements till they get a date (i.e. try asking a women out that is over a size 4). They may shallowly complain about 'fatties', but they start to get dates.
When women are shallow, they tend to get dates anyway, but with scumbags who either lies or are otherwise not nice. Because they ARE dating, instead of realizing the problem and widening their search, they try to further 'tighten' their search.
I have seen this time and time again. I know Harvard educated professional women that are looking for a man that makes as much money as they do, that is taller than 6ft, has similar interests, is single and nice. When the men they date turn out to be players (surprise surprise, a 6ft guy with a six figure salary is dating super-models and is not interested in settling down.), they think the problem is with men in general instead of within themselves.
The problem with his idea is it is too complicated.
This is what I think we should do to fix the problem.
First identify the problems:
1. Mass mailings. Some guys just send out a ton of emails. Not that hard to fix. Limit each guy to no more than 10 emails/week to people that have written an email response to you already. These are called 'first contacts'.
2. Non-responses. Most women never reply. Sure, they often get a ton of emails (see #1 above). So what? It is just as rude to not reply as it is to send out thousands of email. Again, Not hard to fix: If you have more than 5 unreplied emails 'first contact' emails, you get no additional emails (of ANY kind), all are blocked with an auto-reply saying "not currently replying to emails". Offer a set of standard replies including "Not interested", "I may get back to you in the future.". Using thses does not count as a 'real reply', any emails he sends to you still counts as 'first contact'.
3. Lieing. Everyone lies on the sites. People lie about their age, their weight, their height, their job, their money, how shallow they are, everything. When you actually meet a person, you can click a "met, but rejected" when you do that, you can click one of several reasons for rejecting them, worded to be as polite as possible, but honest. They also get the same form (for you) which must be filled out to get any additional emails. Possible options would include things like "Not ambitious enough", "Physically did not live up to my high standards", "Did not click, but was really nice", etc. etc.
These third party verifications do not become visible until at least 3 people have filled them out for you. Then they become visible with TO YOU you with NO NAMES attached. You have the right to either delete all current feeback results, or make all current feedback results visible to other people, if you so choose.
This gives you personal feedback about what your dates truly did not like. If you get really nice feedback, you can let others see it, so they KNOW you are honest. If you don't, you simply have the issue of not having feedback availble on you.
Slashdot Mirror
That is false.
It is a VERY different trip out of the deep gravity hole, filled with atmosphere that we call earth than it is within space.
The best reason to stop in space is to SWITCH crafts.
Specifically, you need a high G (3 or , aerodynamically sound, craft to get out of the atmosphere.
Once you get out there, you generally want a low G (actually, One G would be perfect), space ship, and you don't care that much about shape. (radiation becoems important however).
We generally deal with this now either two ways:
1. Put a smaller ship inside a throw-away one,
2. give a high initial thrust, and plan it out so that it goes where we want it to without any additional thrust.
These ideas are rather primitive, cheap, and silly. A better idea is to launch ship components up to the space station, build them there, then launch the second ship from there. This gets rid of the size constraint of the method 1, and allows powered flight for much quicker delivery, negating the huge disadvantage of method 2. Yes, this will be more expensive, but it lets us do things we could not at all using the current methods.
To give someone an address, email, or other detail specific information. If you say it, they must hear it well, remember it and write it down. If you text it, they have it exactly as you wrote it. No danger of mishearing, forgetting or losing what they wrote it on.
The fact that there is reason for them to get the benefit of being rich DOES NOT mean it is not a benefit.
Just because there is a valid reason for them to have something does not mean we should give it to them for free.
But that is all beside the point. Your main problem is that you assume proportionate happens naturall.
It does NOT.
Look, here is a simple example - the rule of thumb for housing in suburban areas is 2.5 times your annual salary. (not valid in 'prime markets like NY, LA, San Fran) I.E. You make 100k, you should pay no more than 250k for your house.
The majority of people living in the US follow this rule. UNLESS you make more than 1 million a year. If you make more than 1 million a year, your housing costs tend to be LESS than one year's salary.
Similarly, as you get richer, your use of government services do NOT stay in the same proportionate range.
Just as your housing costs go down, your use of government service SKYROCKETS up.
We just want rich people to pay their fair share for the government services they use.
They get greater access to government members, why YES I will see the CEO of GM, even though he did not have an appointment.
They get greater benefits from the government (if you own bear stearns and go bankrupt, you get a bailout. If you own a deli, you get nothing)
You get more use of police and fire men - i.e. if someone robs you of /burns down 50% of your net worth and it is $100 the police say "We'll call you." If the same thing happens when you own $100 million they get RIGHT on it.
You get more us the roads etc and other services. If you own UPS, chances are you are responsible for say 1% of the damage to the roads, that our taxes pay to maintain but if you own a one man bicycle delivery company then you are responsible for a billionth of a percentage.
You get more protection via the military. If say China were to conquer the US, chances are they will leave most of the low end people alone. But they will confiscate huge amounts of wealth from the rich.
You get better government rules (mainly because of things like better acceess) the government protects the rich people hiring illegal aliens but not the poor people whose jobse they stole.
Due to economies of scale, it is REALLY easy for rich people to avoid paying their fair share. They can do things like invest in tax shelters, buy tax free bonds, etc. Poor people theoretically could do the same thing but the fees to do these kinds of things exceed their meager savings. I know people that move to Texas solely to take advantage of favorable tax laws, then take month long vacations in NYC.
You are very ignorant about the way the world works. You think it is simple, but it isn't. The world is a VERY complex place and if you have money you can take advantage of the various complexities. Poor peole usually are stuck with whatever hand they are dealt and don't have time, let alone the money to research how to deal with the various complexities.
Progressive taxes make a HUGE amount of sense because they recognize this fact. The rich benefit more so they should pay a higher percentage.
The main cause of loss of civility (which is partly real and partly false memory) are two fold:
1. Population increase (real loss). It is easy to be nice when there are few other people around. The more people that are around, the more times they will get in your way/annoy you. For example, if you are driving and you are cut off one time, no big deal. If you are driving and you get cut off twelve times on the way to work, it pisses you off and you start thinking of 'getting even'. It snowballs quickly.
2.Expansion of people that 'count'. (memory loss) I.e. There used to be a huge amount of incivility that was ignored. There was a time when using the 'n' word was considered civil. The racial stuff is only a small part of it - class prejudice was really huge. If you were not rich enough to own your own property than those that owned land/horses/etc. were incredibally rude to you, and you yourself could be incredibally rude back to them. They excused their rudeness by saying you were not people of quality and did not 'count', while excusing your rudeness by saying "I told you he was a person of low quality". Similarly, when men politely held a door for woman but did not let them into medical school, this was considered being 'civil'. It wasn't.
Yeah, I know you personally like to engage in wishful thinking, that religion makes people nicer.
I suggest you take a look at
a. History.
b. The middle east (the single highest concentration of religious people outside of Vatican City
There is a clear relationship between faith and values.
Unfortunately, it is NOT the one you wish was true. Instead, there are it is the opposite. The more religious you are, the more you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong (after all, they don't go to your church), and the less civil you are to the unbelievers.
P.S. I consider myself a religious man.
Using something without permission without moving it is not stealing.
You are correct that using it may decrease the availability for them, but that is NOT stealing. Similarly when I violate a products license it is NOT theft. I may be using it illegally but it aint theft.
If I enter your grandparents house turn on your TV and change the channel, it may disrupt your grandparents old VCR set to record their favorite channel.
But I have NOT stolen anything.
One of the major problems you guys have is the fact that you are calling everythign theft. When I hit you and you bleed it may still be a crime but it is NOT theft of your blood. Saying it is makes you look really bad, it does NOT convince us you are correct.
Stop trying to misuse words and you might actually make sense. You might be right, but misusing the language makes you sound foolish, it does NOT convince anyone with enough brains to see through a rather silly ploy.
As for that particular case, that is a technological and social problem. You want to solve it fine do so:
Pass a law that it is illegal to sell any device without a Random password installed. Have the password written on the inside of the box.
But don't try to arrest people doing something that they are CLEARLY not doing.
1. The door does not act in your example, the router DOES act. A more accurate analogy would be: I asked your door to open for me AND IT DID OPEN. Not impossible, as many businnssess have doors that automatically open. 2. You had people STEAL things instead of simply enter the house and watch TV. We are describing someone enter the wifi connection and use it to connect to the internet, NOT take other things. Stop trying to ADD real crimes that we are NOT discussing. God, is it THAT hard to pay attention to our points or do you just ignore people that disagree with you and make up vile lies?
But assuming you were right and the cop did arrest them, then:
If I were the judge in the case against the man, I would order him to be examined by a psychiatrist. Then I would throw the cop and the prosecutor in jail for contempt of court and abuse of process.
YOU may be stupid enough to waste our overburdened police's courts time and money on crap like this, but I doubt any other person involved in the legal system is, unless they were out to get the man that tried to get a single penny.
Worse, you stupid example confounds the issue by using additional felonies, namely brandishing a gun. Also a bit is the smallest possible bit of data, so your example should use a cent, not a dollar. If he had said Byte, then Dollar would make sense.
Try it again without your blatant errors and you get:
Person goes into a bank WITHOUT a gun. Hands the teller a note saying "Give me a penny of the banks money NOW!". Please pay attention to the fact that NO threat was made (that would be another crime, just like brandishing the gun.)
A claim that this is not a robbery would in fact hold up pretty well in court. Even if the teller gave him a penny.
The attorney that concentrates on IP Law seems to know a LOT more than you do, mublestheclown.
I totally agree with you. This thing does not look at ALL like R2D2. R2D2's key characteristers are: Round, dome head with no neck, and 3 legs. This creature is not round, has a square monitor for a head on a neck, and has multiple wheels attached directly to the base (no legs).
What you are doing is a rather nasty, stupid kind of argument called Guilt by Association. More people hate terroism than hate war (and those that hate terrorism hate it more than they hate war.
Because you dislike ware more, you are trying to convince other people to hate war by RELABELLING it as terrorism.
But words have real meaning, they are not your play thing to twist and lie and change in order to trick fools into thinking like you do.
War may not be the best thing in the world, but it is NOT terrorism. There are RADICAL differences between the two concepts, and those differeces are NOT insignificant. Specifically, the major difference between war and terrorism is that terroirsts actively target non-combatants, while war actively targets combatants. Yeah, you may not think that is a big deal, but to someone that is female, a child, or actively refuses to join the military, it is a VERY big deal.
A terroist action is an action in which combatants actively TARGET non-combatants with physical harm (i.e. civilians, not other soldiers), for political purposes.
Please note that this definition of terrorism:
1. Does NOT include the majority of rebels, freedom fighters, or other revolitionaries thar are respected.
2. Does not include wars.
3. DOES include the CIA itself, as they have admitted to targetting noncombatants in the past.
4. Does include most famous terrorist actions, including the crashing into the World Trade Center.
5. Does not include certain famous actions called terroism by the media, such as dingy attack on the USS Cole. (Cripes man, trying to seek a warship should not be called terrorism. It should be called STUPID.)
6. Does leave certain things to argue about, such as the craahing of the plane into the Pentagon. The pentagon is a military target and the civilians on the plane could be called 'ancillary casulaties', as opposed to being the target of the attack.
This definition does not in any way that I can tell have a geopolitical agenda. As it specifically describes certain actions done by the agency that created it as terrorist actions.
The entire point of the voting MACHINES, instead of a s simple running tally like you describe is to catch fraud.
Major, SIMPLY methods of catching fraud include the following:
1. Comparing SEPERATE counters for total votes cast with counters for each of the possible candidates.
2. Comparing hourly totals, so that total for each hour equal total of all hours.
3. Comparing individual machine totals with total for all in a specific site.
4. Comparing totals for all sites with the grand total for a voting district.
5. Comparing all totals for voting districts with a grand total for a state. Moreover, often there are different things to total, for example if there is a select candidate and a confirm, that the totals for the confirms don't exceed the total for the total votes.
It is a method similar to double entry book keeping. This way, no you can't just change a single figure to cheat an election, you need to change a WHOLE BUNCH of figures.
I don't see the problem with that either. So what if it breeds with natural plants. Evolution works. If the bio-engineered stuff is hardy enough, let the plants evolve using it. If not, it will be replaced by plants that are not 'infected'.
Famine, Disease, War are all SOLUTIONS, not problems. They are God's (or nature's if you are an athiest) tough love cure for overpopulation. Any biologist will tell you that each and every one of them occures in some animals besides humans when they outgrow their current habitat.
Famine - not enough food for the amount of people you have. Disease - anyone doctor will tell you that higher population = more disease. You reduce population size and disease rates drop like a tech stock in early 2008. War, well, it solves one and only one problem - overpopulation.
But even if you can't see the logic in that, think about what real vat food production would mean. The ability to grow meet in a vat would allow for the following:
Growing it in an antiseptic area, free of things like say Mad Cow Disease
Quicker grow rate, for the cost of less feed, (Don't have to help the animal grow bones, tendons, brains, etc.) allowing us to make more meat, cheaper, feeding more people, reducing hunger.
Not all people ahve problems with gene modified plants. Not even all liberals. Despite the conservative desire to classify everyone that does not follow their ridiculous ideas as radical fools, there are quite a few people out there that are pretty liberal but not lunatics. I myself enjoy steak very much, but if given the choice between a real animal steak and a vat grown one, would choose a vat grown. I eat gene modified plants all the time. I don't see the difference between 'natural Corn' (that the american indians bread up from things the size of a kid's pinkie to things the size of an adult's forearm.) and gene modified plants.
When they say "VAT" that means it is only a sample of the animal, in a giant tub (vat means a tub/barrell). It has no brain, legs, arms, etc. It is more like a cross between an animal and bacteria than a real animal.
In fact, the Bus stop is the BEST example I have thought of.
1. The absence of a password is equievelent to the absence of a WALL. I mean, cripes, you could at least put up a password of 123456.
2. I am talking about using the wifi to get to the internet, not into someone's files, so it is in effect a transportation network entree point, just like a bus stop.
People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for their actions, not blame others for their total inability to do simple, basic precautions that any 5 year old knows to do. This is not something that requires technical skill at all, it is simply putting a PASSWORD on your system.
2. For things that really need a password, I suggest the following method. Instead of coming up with a single password, come up with a pass word RULE SYSTEM. Example: Last letter of website name (before .com./.org/etc.) plus 2nd to last letter of my username, plus their numbers in the alphabet plust the nonsense phrase C8t_f1re
So using that rule, my password for slashdot.com would be tpC8t_f1re. My password for fark would be koC8t_f1re
This way, all you need to do is remember a single rule, and let the web sites remember your username for you. Someone that learns your password (like say the sys-admin for work) will not know it for anything else.
P.S., no that is not my rule.
The point you are missing is that it is NOT at ALL like entering an unlocked house.
It is like entering an unlocked BUILDING.
When you see an wifi connection, all you have is a name. You DON'T know if it is someone's house, a bank, or a bus stop, or a church.
CHARITIES EXIST. There are places that legally leave open a wifi connection for anyone to use. Similarly, Churches exist. They open there doors to everyone.
It is NO more wrong to enter an open wifi connection and use it, then it is to step out of the rain into an open building.
It is the responisbility of the OWNER of the building/wifi to lock the doors/connection if they don't want people to use it.
This way it lets the wonderful people offering free access (like say the co-op where I buy my food has an open wifi connection, or the church across the street) do so without hinderance.
You want privacy, you have an ISP contract that prevents other people from using your wifi? Fine it is YOUR responsibility to protect it, not ours.
The charities have the right not to be forced to go to ridiculous lengths to tell people that 'yes it is OK to use us'. Similarly innocent people have the RIGHT to assume it is a charity if you are so moronic as to not even put a lock on the door or ANY sign at all that it is not a charitable free wifi.
The standard plans for buildign Solar Thermal generators include heat storage devices. More importantly, in the areas where these devices are created, what almost ALWAYS happens is that during periods of peak demand, the power output is highest. I.E. During 9-5, when businesses are up and running and air conditioners are up and running , the sun is the strongest.
Then they actually STORE up heat during the peak demand periods, to use in the lower demand period, called night.
Using current technology, solar thermal power plants are almost cheap enough to displace fossil fuels, at least for the southern half of the country.
I would agree that nuclear is probably going to be neccessary for the parts of the country that don't get enough sun. But geothermal is WAY too expensive, except in extremely rare locations.
For less than 100 pounds, you can start harvesting all the chip-pin info you want.
The industry could solve this issue easily, simply by encrypting the data within the reader. This would force criminals to pay to build/buy some kind of 'theft chip', instead of simply having to learn how to reprogram them.
Lots of interest, but not much action. I think the women were all considering me as 'nice back up date', not first run material, but don't know because I got no real feedback.
I would agree that lying includes the 'unintentional' misrepresentations, for me that is part of the problem
But another problem is the quiet obvious 'shallowness' of the dating pool.
The problem exists in both men and women, but it causes more problem for women than for men. When men are extremely shallow (i.e. set standards too high for their potential dates), they tend to get no first dates. Men are forced to either lie or widen their search requirements till they get a date (i.e. try asking a women out that is over a size 4). They may shallowly complain about 'fatties', but they start to get dates.
When women are shallow, they tend to get dates anyway, but with scumbags who either lies or are otherwise not nice. Because they ARE dating, instead of realizing the problem and widening their search, they try to further 'tighten' their search.
I have seen this time and time again. I know Harvard educated professional women that are looking for a man that makes as much money as they do, that is taller than 6ft, has similar interests, is single and nice. When the men they date turn out to be players (surprise surprise, a 6ft guy with a six figure salary is dating super-models and is not interested in settling down.), they think the problem is with men in general instead of within themselves.
This is what I think we should do to fix the problem.
First identify the problems: 1. Mass mailings. Some guys just send out a ton of emails. Not that hard to fix. Limit each guy to no more than 10 emails/week to people that have written an email response to you already. These are called 'first contacts'.
2. Non-responses. Most women never reply. Sure, they often get a ton of emails (see #1 above). So what? It is just as rude to not reply as it is to send out thousands of email. Again, Not hard to fix: If you have more than 5 unreplied emails 'first contact' emails, you get no additional emails (of ANY kind), all are blocked with an auto-reply saying "not currently replying to emails". Offer a set of standard replies including "Not interested", "I may get back to you in the future.". Using thses does not count as a 'real reply', any emails he sends to you still counts as 'first contact'.
3. Lieing. Everyone lies on the sites. People lie about their age, their weight, their height, their job, their money, how shallow they are, everything. When you actually meet a person, you can click a "met, but rejected" when you do that, you can click one of several reasons for rejecting them, worded to be as polite as possible, but honest. They also get the same form (for you) which must be filled out to get any additional emails. Possible options would include things like "Not ambitious enough", "Physically did not live up to my high standards", "Did not click, but was really nice", etc. etc.
These third party verifications do not become visible until at least 3 people have filled them out for you. Then they become visible with TO YOU you with NO NAMES attached. You have the right to either delete all current feeback results, or make all current feedback results visible to other people, if you so choose.
This gives you personal feedback about what your dates truly did not like. If you get really nice feedback, you can let others see it, so they KNOW you are honest. If you don't, you simply have the issue of not having feedback availble on you.