The fact they felt it necessary to put the word lawful in that description is kind of like a mobster using the phrase "legitimate businessman". Real legitimate businessmen call themselves 'businessmen'. They don't need to add the word legitimate, because they are legitimate. You don't add the word 'lawful' unless deep down in your heart, you have questions about it being lawful.
But the GOP is in control of the purse strings and they want to de-fund even essential services. No way will they invest in the future without another space race. Our current enemies are terrorists who can't come close to racing against us.
No competition = no race = no funding for space.
The only way I could it happening is if we had first contact of some kind. So I put the odds at about a 100 million to one, against.
I'm more likely to win every single lottery and put all the funds toward a trips to mars.
The problem is that the anti-GM people are not logical. They spread lies and paranoid bull and can not be trusted.
Worse, there is another issue - the looking in the light scenario:
Cop comes across a guy on his knees under a lamp post. Goes over and asks him what he is doing. Guy says "looking for my car keys." Cop asks "Where exactly where you standing when you lost them. Guy points at a spot 20 ft away, in the dark. Cop says "What are you doing looking for them here?" Guy responds "No way I'll find them in the dark. Here, at least I got a chance.
If you label something, it gives support to the idea that it is important and something to consider. The government has no business doing that for GM foods which it has found to be harmless.
The point is that people use whatever information they can obtain to base their decisions on. If we tell them what is and what is not GM, some people will refuse to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the non-GM is better. Price differentials will create a situation where only the poor get GM food. It might even end up killing the GM industry.
A similar thing has already happened with things like gluten free. 90% of the people buying gluten free products have ZERO issues digesting gluten. They had one bad reaction to a product and some ill-informed superstitious fool told them it was gluten related. So now they avoid gluten. Yes, there are a few people with gluten issues If you don't have celiac disease or at least sensitivity to gluten, gluten is not only fine, it's probably good for you. It's a whole grain and most people don't get enough of that.
The GM people don't want to be pushed into a situation similar to the gluten people - where idiotic superstitious people avoid their product.
The US government is NOT there to help people be superstitious. You want something to be labelled? Prove a negative consequence.
That's what this is - a large corporation deciding to charitably pay huge amounts of money to defend it's customer's rights.
While I understand their desire to do this, we need a legal system that does it automatically.
Most privacy violations are clear. No one puts someone else's songs up there 'accidentally'.
If all DMCA cases, we should have loser pays rule. Right now, the poster can be required to pay huge damages, so why shouldn't the claimant be required to pay double the court costs.
Let's face it, Facebook is not quite a monopoly. There are other, similar social networking sites out there, and other people can freely start their own. They don't deserve the extra scrutiny that monopolies have.
That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.
If you need people to use real names, offer the option of paying a $1 credit card fee on signup. That gives you real names, without the huge privacy invasion called Facebook, which is worth far more than $1. (estimates are over $17 per female user, and $13 per male user. Source: http://adage.com/article/digit... )
Step 1) Hacker (or rather "cracker") takes them on the offer to test their equipment in a secure environment.
Step 2) Hacker understands how it works and notices a security issue, but does not reveal it.
Step 3) Return to private home where they design an exploit of that issue.
Frankly, their attempts to keep their security secret just make it harder for the white hats to detect the issues, without significantly affecting the black hats.
Normal gold mining is known for using vile chemicals (mercury, cyanide) to seperate out small percentages (1%) of gold from non-gold. Deep sea gold mining avoids this problem. They go to hot vents where the gold is much higher percentages. So they don;t use mercury or cyanide.
They do however involve large transportation of materials up from the sea bed, most of which is released to float down.
The risks are radically different than land based mining and relatively unknown.
But I am a firm believer in diversification of risk. I'd rather have some coal and some nuclear, rather than just one, as the risks are different.
Similarly, undersea gold mining is worth a pilot project or two to see how it affects the local ecology.
You are correct that the pay gap is exaggerated by the statistical issues you mentioned. It also ignores the issue of inheritance (i.e. women marry older men, who die earlier then women, then inherit the money, effectively having a second source of income not included in the statistics). Nor does it take into account other factors such as height (a 5'4" man makes less on average than women - all other things being equal) and race. Finally when a women and men marry, legally they share both salaries. They both benefit and no reasonable accounting would not take that into account.
But even accounting for all of those things, women still get less pay for the same work. The Sony hack proved this, if nothing else. The major group of women that suffer are those that never marry a man. This includes lesbians as well as women that simply never wish to marry.
These women are screwed over by society. just as black men, short men, transgender people, muslims of any gender,
Similarly, the people that most benefit from this practice are gay, tall men. Of course, gay men suffer from other consequences and I am sure most would not consider the money worth it.
Several companies in fact do this. So do industries. Nursing is a great example where the pay is low and people complain about being unable to hire qualified people.
All of this came from two morons that believed in Magic. Senator Hatch (R) and Harkins (D) were convinced that the FDA were holding back nutritional supplements simply because they science said they couldn't work. So they carved out an exception allowing vague health claims to be made without the FDA slamming them down.
This re-created the snake oil industry that the FDA had killed, with but minor regulations preventing extreme claims - and also made it difficult for the FDA to prosecute if the company did make those claims.
Hatch and Harkin killed more Americans than most Senators, and helped enrich a whole generation of scamsters.
Like you, I am a guy, but I agree - this is insulting to women.
It's kind of like saying, "You know, those poor, oversensitive women. The problem isn't harassment, unfair pay, or things like that. It's just that we are using the wrong words."
You want to hire more women? Pay them the same as guys and crush any attempt to harass them with an iron first.
do not want to close them down, they want to monitor them and cross reference them till they can identify the ISIS members. We care far more about that than the minor PR advantages they gain from their existence.
Twitter, etc have financial concerns and will not put that much money into identifying them, especially when the governments don't push it. But they will be happy to take them down if we do the work of identifying the bad actors.
But the principal is true. I rarely want to see video on the Internet. When I do, it's generally only after I have read an article and decided it is worth my full time and attention.
Right now I am at home, watching/listening to the TV and surfing on the net. If the slashdot started spouting noise, demanding my full attention I couldn't hear the TV and it would piss me off.
I'd end up closing down this window, not turning off the TV.
You have a valid argument for Rockets - it's all about planned orbits, usually with a rather limited initial thrust and only minor course corrections. But that's because our power capabilities are so limited we are have no ability to build in a margin. Frankly, a truly mature space ship program would most likely use constant thrust at 1 G, with a turn around half way to slow down. It gets up places quicker and negates the major problems caused by low G.
But planes are ALREADY constant powered vehicles. They don't need to measure fuel by the gram, conserving it excessively. A 20% extra initial thrust at take off is a minor extra cost that provides a much needed margin of safety. The extra acceleration won't exceed structural limitations of the aircraft or the human cargo.
The plane should have pushed the fuel expenditure higher than the bare minimum.
Before you drive a 10,000 lb truck over a bridge, you make sure it is rated for 10,000 lbs.
That does not mean it can handle 10,000 lbs, it means it can handle MORE than 10,000 lbs - the excess is called a margin of safety. It can be expressed as a "factor of safety". If your factor of Safety is 2, then the engineer believes the bridge can handle twice the stated load.
For aircraft and spacecraft, the US government generally requires Factor of Safety of at least 1.2, but as high as 3 is common. That means that if the tire is expect to hold 10 tons, it was built to actually hold at least 12 tons. (All above info from Wikipedia)
Apparently the idiots that write these programs thought, hey, we don't need to use a reasonable Factor of Safety. They calculated they needed 93.1 units of thrust, but failed only 88.4. That means their Safety Factor was less than 1.12
If the morons had put in the expected margin of safety of 1.2, then the plane should have been able to take off even if they had only applied 77.67 units of thrust.
Clear failure of the programmer to build a sufficient margin of safety into their calculations
1) War. You use this weapon in battle. We are most familiar with this class. Guns, tanks, bombs, planes, etc.
2)Bluff. This category includes things like nuclear weapons. No (sane) person wants to use these. Most Americans currently alive, wish it had not been necessary to use them in WWII. Instead, we want the otherside to know we have it and are willing to use it. Which is half the reason why we did in fact use them in WWII - to demonstrate we had them and they worked.
Clearly, China has zero interest in using stealth planes to attack other people. But they want to make sure the rest of the world knows "Hey, we have these planes and they might be above your head, watching you RIGHT NOW. So respect us."
One man holding a fire house on full power = a house splaying around randomly. That's a man using his full weight to hold it down.
Also, these things tend to have heavy weight restrictions. No way it can carry a firefighter, in full gear, holding a full grown Adult - not even a thin one.
About the only use for this might be to save a kitten or a child. Maybe a very thin women.
PC does the same thing and this is worthless. We WANT to limit the magnifcation just to one section, we don't want to do the entire screen.
When you do the entire screen, the pictures, ads, and white space (usually from columns just used at the very top) end up taking up way too much space and the 'main' text is pushed to a small fraction of the screen.
It's not just 'look screwy". it becomes effectively unreadable. Minor icons, pictures, and 2nd columns that are only used at the top end up taking 70% of the space, leaving the text in a small, tight column 30% of the monitor.
What we really need is the ability to increase the text size of just ONE small section.
Mostly worthless. What happens 9/10 times is that the entire page resizes, rather than just the text. Pictures, ads, and whitespace areas end up taking 80% of the monitor.
Probably. Especially if they both applied at the same time. If some bureaucrat got two requests in the same day, he probably just assumed the 2nd was someone being impatient, and just sent the same information.
The real question is, will the US government compensate them for their large legal bills caused by the the government screw up.
Parallel construction is a questionable practice that many believe to be unconstitional, in large part because of the legal reasoning I described above..
It is SUPPOSED to only be used when you have legal evidence obtained that you wish to keep secret to protect undercover cops. Legally it should not be used to cover up the use of poison fruit.
As I stated in my first post, THERE ARE PROSECUTORS that break the law, and this is one technique they may use to do that.
But just because a prosecutor did something, it does not make what he did legal. In cases like this, chances are you won't get a fair trial unless:
1) You pay a huge amount of money to a good lawyer.
or
2) Your judge/appeal judge is particularly diligent about civil rights.
But we are discussing what is legal, not the practicalities of obtaining your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact they felt it necessary to put the word lawful in that description is kind of like a mobster using the phrase "legitimate businessman". Real legitimate businessmen call themselves 'businessmen'. They don't need to add the word legitimate, because they are legitimate. You don't add the word 'lawful' unless deep down in your heart, you have questions about it being lawful.
But the GOP is in control of the purse strings and they want to de-fund even essential services. No way will they invest in the future without another space race. Our current enemies are terrorists who can't come close to racing against us.
No competition = no race = no funding for space.
The only way I could it happening is if we had first contact of some kind. So I put the odds at about a 100 million to one, against.
I'm more likely to win every single lottery and put all the funds toward a trips to mars.
Of course, it's a lot easier to do that when you have a high margin luxury product.
Worse, there is another issue - the looking in the light scenario:
Cop comes across a guy on his knees under a lamp post. Goes over and asks him what he is doing. Guy says "looking for my car keys." Cop asks "Where exactly where you standing when you lost them. Guy points at a spot 20 ft away, in the dark. Cop says "What are you doing looking for them here?" Guy responds "No way I'll find them in the dark. Here, at least I got a chance.
If you label something, it gives support to the idea that it is important and something to consider. The government has no business doing that for GM foods which it has found to be harmless.
The point is that people use whatever information they can obtain to base their decisions on. If we tell them what is and what is not GM, some people will refuse to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the non-GM is better. Price differentials will create a situation where only the poor get GM food. It might even end up killing the GM industry.
A similar thing has already happened with things like gluten free. 90% of the people buying gluten free products have ZERO issues digesting gluten. They had one bad reaction to a product and some ill-informed superstitious fool told them it was gluten related. So now they avoid gluten. Yes, there are a few people with gluten issues If you don't have celiac disease or at least sensitivity to gluten, gluten is not only fine, it's probably good for you. It's a whole grain and most people don't get enough of that.
The GM people don't want to be pushed into a situation similar to the gluten people - where idiotic superstitious people avoid their product.
The US government is NOT there to help people be superstitious. You want something to be labelled? Prove a negative consequence.
While I understand their desire to do this, we need a legal system that does it automatically.
Most privacy violations are clear. No one puts someone else's songs up there 'accidentally'.
If all DMCA cases, we should have loser pays rule. Right now, the poster can be required to pay huge damages, so why shouldn't the claimant be required to pay double the court costs.
Slaves don't.
If you can't tell the difference, then please submit your resume to me today, I'm Hiring
That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.
If you need people to use real names, offer the option of paying a $1 credit card fee on signup. That gives you real names, without the huge privacy invasion called Facebook, which is worth far more than $1. (estimates are over $17 per female user, and $13 per male user. Source: http://adage.com/article/digit... )
Step 2) Hacker understands how it works and notices a security issue, but does not reveal it.
Step 3) Return to private home where they design an exploit of that issue.
Frankly, their attempts to keep their security secret just make it harder for the white hats to detect the issues, without significantly affecting the black hats.
They do however involve large transportation of materials up from the sea bed, most of which is released to float down.
The risks are radically different than land based mining and relatively unknown.
But I am a firm believer in diversification of risk. I'd rather have some coal and some nuclear, rather than just one, as the risks are different.
Similarly, undersea gold mining is worth a pilot project or two to see how it affects the local ecology.
But even accounting for all of those things, women still get less pay for the same work. The Sony hack proved this, if nothing else. The major group of women that suffer are those that never marry a man. This includes lesbians as well as women that simply never wish to marry.
These women are screwed over by society. just as black men, short men, transgender people, muslims of any gender,
Similarly, the people that most benefit from this practice are gay, tall men. Of course, gay men suffer from other consequences and I am sure most would not consider the money worth it.
Several companies in fact do this. So do industries. Nursing is a great example where the pay is low and people complain about being unable to hire qualified people.
This re-created the snake oil industry that the FDA had killed, with but minor regulations preventing extreme claims - and also made it difficult for the FDA to prosecute if the company did make those claims.
Hatch and Harkin killed more Americans than most Senators, and helped enrich a whole generation of scamsters.
It's kind of like saying, "You know, those poor, oversensitive women. The problem isn't harassment, unfair pay, or things like that. It's just that we are using the wrong words."
You want to hire more women? Pay them the same as guys and crush any attempt to harass them with an iron first.
Twitter, etc have financial concerns and will not put that much money into identifying them, especially when the governments don't push it. But they will be happy to take them down if we do the work of identifying the bad actors.
But the principal is true. I rarely want to see video on the Internet. When I do, it's generally only after I have read an article and decided it is worth my full time and attention.
Right now I am at home, watching/listening to the TV and surfing on the net. If the slashdot started spouting noise, demanding my full attention I couldn't hear the TV and it would piss me off. I'd end up closing down this window, not turning off the TV.
But planes are ALREADY constant powered vehicles. They don't need to measure fuel by the gram, conserving it excessively. A 20% extra initial thrust at take off is a minor extra cost that provides a much needed margin of safety. The extra acceleration won't exceed structural limitations of the aircraft or the human cargo.
The plane should have pushed the fuel expenditure higher than the bare minimum.
That does not mean it can handle 10,000 lbs, it means it can handle MORE than 10,000 lbs - the excess is called a margin of safety. It can be expressed as a "factor of safety". If your factor of Safety is 2, then the engineer believes the bridge can handle twice the stated load.
For aircraft and spacecraft, the US government generally requires Factor of Safety of at least 1.2, but as high as 3 is common. That means that if the tire is expect to hold 10 tons, it was built to actually hold at least 12 tons. (All above info from Wikipedia)
Apparently the idiots that write these programs thought, hey, we don't need to use a reasonable Factor of Safety. They calculated they needed 93.1 units of thrust, but failed only 88.4. That means their Safety Factor was less than 1.12
If the morons had put in the expected margin of safety of 1.2, then the plane should have been able to take off even if they had only applied 77.67 units of thrust.
Clear failure of the programmer to build a sufficient margin of safety into their calculations
Besides, how am I supposed to get the news at work without everyone knowing I am goofing off?
If you post a video, post a transcript. But don't post videos.
2)Bluff. This category includes things like nuclear weapons. No (sane) person wants to use these. Most Americans currently alive, wish it had not been necessary to use them in WWII. Instead, we want the otherside to know we have it and are willing to use it. Which is half the reason why we did in fact use them in WWII - to demonstrate we had them and they worked.
Clearly, China has zero interest in using stealth planes to attack other people. But they want to make sure the rest of the world knows "Hey, we have these planes and they might be above your head, watching you RIGHT NOW. So respect us."
Also, these things tend to have heavy weight restrictions. No way it can carry a firefighter, in full gear, holding a full grown Adult - not even a thin one.
About the only use for this might be to save a kitten or a child. Maybe a very thin women.
When you do the entire screen, the pictures, ads, and white space (usually from columns just used at the very top) end up taking up way too much space and the 'main' text is pushed to a small fraction of the screen.
What we really need is the ability to increase the text size of just ONE small section.
Mostly worthless. What happens 9/10 times is that the entire page resizes, rather than just the text. Pictures, ads, and whitespace areas end up taking 80% of the monitor.
The real question is, will the US government compensate them for their large legal bills caused by the the government screw up.
It is SUPPOSED to only be used when you have legal evidence obtained that you wish to keep secret to protect undercover cops. Legally it should not be used to cover up the use of poison fruit.
As I stated in my first post, THERE ARE PROSECUTORS that break the law, and this is one technique they may use to do that.
But just because a prosecutor did something, it does not make what he did legal. In cases like this, chances are you won't get a fair trial unless:
1) You pay a huge amount of money to a good lawyer.
or
2) Your judge/appeal judge is particularly diligent about civil rights.
But we are discussing what is legal, not the practicalities of obtaining your rights.