Unlike winning at chess, which has little if any real world possibilities (except allowing solitary chase playing for the grand masters).
Answering jeopardy style vague questions is at the heart of many help desk applications, searching, and even reception work. This is a real product/service that can be sold.
There is no way it could become a necessity. Way too much moronic invasions of privacy and poorly programmed stuff.
The idea that it might become in any way necessary is ridiculous.
That would kind of be like some one deciding that all tolls should now be paid by text messaging. Yeah, a lot of people text while driving, but not those that know what they are doing. You don't empower an idiotic action.
I am sure that the credit card thin is something you sign up.
But I don't want some MORON looking at SMS traffic updates on their iphone while I am driving next to them. Endangering your own credit rating is your own business. Endangering my life is another thing entirely.
The fact that you personally may be smart enough not to text while I am next to you does not mean I have to sit back and let every teenage moron that has never had to slam on their brakes once in their entire life do the same.
But frankly, any one that thinks the government doesn't have the right to prevent other people from endangering my life by preventing people from doing something that you clearly realize is very dangerous, does not seem to be smart enough to to trust not to text.
It's a nice idea that none of them have tried. You can't say it's not going to work because while they are trying the other direction, they keep failing at that other direction.
At least one of them should give up on the obnoxious double dipping that has consistently failed and see what happens.
In other words, the counter example of failures is not a very good reason not to try something that they did not try.
What is this 'print world' you talk of it? It sounds like some ancient business that is failing.
The print world had far better advertisement rules - nothing in the middle of an article breaking it up, no video, no sound, no "ROLLOVER CRAP", most of it on entirely separate pages that people could skip over.
This is NOT the print world, and attempting to use the oldest of the systems as a model is why they fail
I, and many others, are perfectly willing to PAY good money for things that would otherwise be free.
But we don't want to watch advertisements while we do it.
Expecting people to pay for online content and ALSO see any advertisement (I mean ANYTHING, even simple words), is kind of like saying HBO wants to continue to charge their premium price for premium services but it is now going to show advertisements.
NO. You can't have it both ways,
You want ads? You can't charge. Period.
You want to charge? You can't have ads.
Also, NO tracking. No ads means you don't have to tracks us (You can still track how many people read which article, but not which article any individual reads.)
As long as the greedy morons try to charge HBO prices for TBS content, surprise surprise, no one will pay.
His basic explanation is that the pentagon guy waited sufficient time. Bullcrap.
Also his "legal reasoning" relied on a case that involved american journalists on american soil. Any lawyer that thinks that american laws that affect americans on american soil also apply to non-americans who are in another country, without even discussing that issue, should be called up by the Bar association and have his priveldges revoked. It's kind of like arresting a Spanish bar tender for serving alcohol to a teenager in Spain because New York State said it is illegal to serve minors.
Look, I am an American citizen. The wikileak thing was a douchey act. But it is NOT illegal for a publisher (and if the crime you are accused of consists of publishing, that MAKES you a publisher) to publish secrets. It is illegal to illegaly obtain those secrets, but accepting them as a gift from a criminal is not illegal and never has been.
Languages myths rise and fall. If your economic value is their, people will find a way to talk to you. If not, it won't.
China has one thing going for it - numbers. That is the same, tired old argument made by my teachers to learn Spanish. Nope.
Chinese is a beautiful, ancient, language that is totally unsuited for modern life. The second China created the print, the language should have been redone. Yes, they had a poor man's printing press 500 years before Gutenberg. But they did not create moveable type because their language did not have letters, just words. That was a huge mistake.
Trying to claim that Chinese will suplement English is like claiming Fortran will overtake Java because of how many supercomputers use it.
No I know exactly what I am talking about. They both agreed to have sex. They both had pleasant contact with the him after wards. The first girl through a party FOR HIM and then INTRODUCED him to the other after the incident she talked about.
The only definition of rape that that lets you get away with it would ALSO call every single ugly woman that has sex with a drunk man a rapists. (Re-read that sentence - You are claiming that women rape men). Just because you have second thoughts DAYS after you agreed to have sex with someone does not mean you were raped.
1. Writing down your passwords is far worse than what I do. Better to use a stupid password that requires someone that I know (and likely to want to impersonate me) to figure out a method of testing all the stupid passwords, than writing it down and having a room-mate/girlfriend happen across it one day. Sure they may not use it right away, but what if you get into a fight...
2. Writing down a password is more effort than I am willing to use for something like Discovery channel.
1. Assange is clearly innocent of any serious offense (read the 'rape' complaints against him - both women admit to agreeing to have sex with him - their complaints are based on rather esoteric nordic laws that typically are satisified by a FINE, not imprisonment.) He is not a US citizen (so can't be called a traitor), and did not steal or in any way compensate the thief that stole the info. He simply published the information - and attacking him for publishing true information is a violation of the Right of Free Speech and the Right to a Free Press - even if you don't like him, he is still an internet publisher.
2. Assange is also one of the douchey-est asswipes I have ever heard of. What he did to those women may not have been rape by any american legal definition of the word, but he is still the kind of loser I would warn my sister and niece away from (of course that doesn't say much about the two loose women that slept with him either.).
3. Moore is also a fairly douchey, even if he often supports moral causes, he tends to do so rather unethically. Moore and Asasange make a good pair and they should help each other out.
4. It releaves me of the nagging thought that I should help out Assange with cash. I mean, he may be a total douchey asswipe, but he shouldn't go to jail. The morons calling him a terrorist need to get a grip. Terrorists KILL people they hate. When all you do is print/publish/write crap about people you hate it is called being the "loyal opposition". If we could get Bin Laden to stop trying to kill us and only publish our nasty secrets, that would be a huge victory.
So I am pretty happy about this situation. One nasty person helping out another nasty person that was falsely accused, so that I don't have to do it myself.
When I create a profile for something like the Discovery Channel's forum, I don't care if someone hacks my account. It has no financial information and I am only using it to comment on Mythbusters.
The idea that a password is neccessary for such an account is idiotic. No one cares about hacking it (or if you do, then you have an unhealthy obsession with TV).
Gawker is a similar timewaster. Wasting your brain power to create/remember a good password for it is foolish.
I see nothing wrong with using "123456" or "password" for it. I am also pretty sure that most intelligent people that use stupid passwords for stupid web sites, don't use stupid passwords for their bank account or their primary email (but maybe for an email they feed to spammers that offer 'deals' if you give them your email.)
I saw the computer version earlier and while it was good enough to beat me, the Jeopardy champions are far better. In addition, the version I saw demonstrated was 'advanced' - by that they meant that further advancements resulted in only tiny, incremental performace increases, not by significant ones.
1. Jeopardy is 99.9% wordplay of some kind. Every single category has some kind of wordplay. Watch the show.
2. Computers are much WORSE at facts - unless they were specifically programmed with a small subset of facts. Human memory far exceeds computer memory and is far better at 'SPEEDY' retrieval of facts from a large database. The only reason you think computers are good at facts is that we restrict computers to small databases and then only consult that database for those facts.
No. 1. Because there have MULTIPLE US District Judges that have ruled on this exact same issue and many of them have ruled the other way. The Supreme Court will make a determination, not the few radical, partisan, activist judges.
and 2. Because this is not a legal issue but a simple logic issue. The fact that a few radical conservative activists judges exist and are too stupid to do simple math:
If: X = Y+1
then: X-1 = Y
and: X-2 = Y-1
Simple math. If the US congress has the power and ability to both raise taxes and also to give a tax break, then US congress has the power and ability to simplify things and just say "We give a tax penalty. That is simply LOGIC. Not law. The Supreme Court will in fact rule that way.
The only people that can't understand this are morons too stupid to do basic math. But that is NOT what is going on. The people behind these lawsuits are generally not that stupid. They know the law is valid, but they just hate it. So these partisan activist that LOST the congressional vote and are trying to come up with SOMETHING to go against the will of the people.
Yes, the majority of people do want this law - 40% hate the law, 30% like the law, and the other 30% are upset that it did not FURTHER. They wanted the public option. You lost 40% to 60%.
The government is NOT interfering with your transaction. They raised your taxes, then gave certain people a tax break if you qualify. You choose NOT to qualify. They have not in any interfered in your transaction.
As for charging people an extra $1,00 per year if they failed to buy a solar roof... THEY ALREADY DO THAT YOU!
The fact that you are too stupid to tell the difference between raising everyone's taxes by $1,000 and then offering a $1,000 tax refund for buying a solar roof and instead just straight forwardly charging people $1,000 if they don't buy a solar roof tells me that you are MORE than stupid enough to buy this new Cadillac I just bought but can't afford the upkeep on.
I promise it is in very good shape. It's a steal at only $2,000 (warning, you will have to continue paying the upkeep contract that I bought from my sister. I swear I got a very good deal - so I locked it in at only $1,000 a month for 10 years.)
Your problem is not that you have misinterpreted Jefferson and Madison (although it sounds like you have done). Instead it is your clear inability to understand Math and Economics.
The power to raise taxes combines with the power to offer people a tax break for doing something is EXACTLY identical to offering a tax penalty for not doing something. There is NO difference.
Congress can raise taxes. They don't like doing this, because it costs them votes, but they have that power. No sane person would claim they don't have that power. Similarly, they have to power to create tax loopholes. They have been doing it practically since they were created. There is NO real difference - financially, ethically, or legally - between those two abilities and the power to create a tax penalty.
I don't question it. I have studied it thoroughly and am very well educated on the issue. You are entirely wrong, are acting emotional and objecting to soemthign becaue you dislike it and therefore are struggling to find SOME kind of insane argument about it being unconstitional. Nope. Sorry. Not everything you hate is unconstitional.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Just as the government can put a tax on you doing something, they can put a tax on you not doing something. Just as the government can say "we give everyone that have children a tax reduction", that same government can say "We give everyone that buys health care, a tax reduction."
The only problem here is a bunch of morons are too stupid to think their own argument through. They get caught up in words like 'require' but don't bother to look at what the law actually does.
The fact that the government choose to use words that sound like they are criminalizing it does not affect the actual content of the law. The fact that you can't find anything at all actually wrong with the law forces you to concentrate on irrelavant crap.
Right now the only penalty for failing to buy health care is a tax.
Claiming that the Federal government does not have the ability to tax people for doing something is ridiculous. If the government has the right to tax us for doing something, it has the right to tax us for not doing something.
Oh, how sweet. Your loss of innocence. I'll try to be gentle.
Any politician with a security detail does not need to be patted down. I wonder how they verify that the politician (and their security detail) are who they say they are.
In addition pilots no longer need to be patted down.
But they screwed over flight attendants - who have to undergo the same extensive FBI investigation and fingerprinting that pilots do.
This is the TSA's own number. They quote it based on the low level of radiation. I trust this number, because radiation does not change depending on which machine it comes from.
The machines they use are pretty safe. Only a 1 in 30 million chance of cancer.
Of course, the odds of getting killed by a terrorist are less than one in 60 million.
The TSA claim their searches are 'reasonable'. Then why do they say that congressman don't have to go through it? If it reasonable, then everyone should have to do it.
They consistently say things like "You give up your rights when you buy the ticket."
No. Our rights do NOT go away. The law is clear - the rights remain. The definition of reasonable is what changes. And no reasonable parent man would allow their 14 year old girl pictured nude or fondled. Similarly, no reasonable person would allow the searches the TSA has demanded. This includes the basic stuff and the more viable junk like harassing women for traveling with breast milk, or Armed US soldiers traveling with rifles (OK - let them go) and nail clippers (NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. GIVE IT HERE.), stealing watches, cash from purses, etc..
The TSA has NEVER, not ONCE caught an actual terrorist planning on committing a hijacking that they were not previously given the name. Not once has any metal detector or pat down discovered a terrorist that we were not already looking for.
I love these stories of people 'misusing' internet.
90% of the time it is just people surfing when they have no work to do. That is NOT mis-use of internet, anymore than having people carry a work blackberry when they are not being paid to be working violates overtime laws.
If someone does their job, does not visit porn, does not use up excessive bandwidth, they are not 'misusing the internet'.
If you don't do your job, then you should be fired, and it should NOT matter if you are not doing your job because you are texting/talking to your friends on the phone (your personal one), or if you are using the massively capable communication device sitting in front of you.
Imagine you are a CEO and you ask your secretary to confirm your personal vacation plans. If she does that on the internet would that be "MISUSE"? What if the CEO does it himself? No. Neither is Misuse. It only becomes misuse if the personal stuff gets in the way of your job, and then it is poor work habits, not anything to do with the interent. This is just evil shmucks trying to redefine perfectably normal behavior that everyone (INCLUDING CEO'S) does.
This has been so annoying, I am glad they finally fixed this issue.
Of course this also means that when I fall asleep watching a TV show I will now sleep the entire night instead of being wakened up by the obnoxious commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike winning at chess, which has little if any real world possibilities (except allowing solitary chase playing for the grand masters). Answering jeopardy style vague questions is at the heart of many help desk applications, searching, and even reception work. This is a real product/service that can be sold.
The idea that it might become in any way necessary is ridiculous.
That would kind of be like some one deciding that all tolls should now be paid by text messaging. Yeah, a lot of people text while driving, but not those that know what they are doing. You don't empower an idiotic action.
But I don't want some MORON looking at SMS traffic updates on their iphone while I am driving next to them. Endangering your own credit rating is your own business. Endangering my life is another thing entirely.
The fact that you personally may be smart enough not to text while I am next to you does not mean I have to sit back and let every teenage moron that has never had to slam on their brakes once in their entire life do the same.
But frankly, any one that thinks the government doesn't have the right to prevent other people from endangering my life by preventing people from doing something that you clearly realize is very dangerous, does not seem to be smart enough to to trust not to text.
At least one of them should give up on the obnoxious double dipping that has consistently failed and see what happens.
In other words, the counter example of failures is not a very good reason not to try something that they did not try.
The print world had far better advertisement rules - nothing in the middle of an article breaking it up, no video, no sound, no "ROLLOVER CRAP", most of it on entirely separate pages that people could skip over.
This is NOT the print world, and attempting to use the oldest of the systems as a model is why they fail
But we don't want to watch advertisements while we do it.
Expecting people to pay for online content and ALSO see any advertisement (I mean ANYTHING, even simple words), is kind of like saying HBO wants to continue to charge their premium price for premium services but it is now going to show advertisements.
NO. You can't have it both ways,
You want ads? You can't charge. Period.
You want to charge? You can't have ads. Also, NO tracking. No ads means you don't have to tracks us (You can still track how many people read which article, but not which article any individual reads.)
As long as the greedy morons try to charge HBO prices for TBS content, surprise surprise, no one will pay.
In addition, Amazon is probably too much a part of the culture to be appropriate for a counterculture website like Wikileaks.
It would be kind of like Fox Broadcasting owning the New York Times (or is that the other way around?)
In other words, Wikileaks needs to be able to report leaks ABOUT Amazon.
Also his "legal reasoning" relied on a case that involved american journalists on american soil. Any lawyer that thinks that american laws that affect americans on american soil also apply to non-americans who are in another country, without even discussing that issue, should be called up by the Bar association and have his priveldges revoked. It's kind of like arresting a Spanish bar tender for serving alcohol to a teenager in Spain because New York State said it is illegal to serve minors.
Look, I am an American citizen. The wikileak thing was a douchey act. But it is NOT illegal for a publisher (and if the crime you are accused of consists of publishing, that MAKES you a publisher) to publish secrets. It is illegal to illegaly obtain those secrets, but accepting them as a gift from a criminal is not illegal and never has been.
Languages myths rise and fall. If your economic value is their, people will find a way to talk to you. If not, it won't.
China has one thing going for it - numbers. That is the same, tired old argument made by my teachers to learn Spanish. Nope.
Chinese is a beautiful, ancient, language that is totally unsuited for modern life. The second China created the print, the language should have been redone. Yes, they had a poor man's printing press 500 years before Gutenberg. But they did not create moveable type because their language did not have letters, just words. That was a huge mistake.
Trying to claim that Chinese will suplement English is like claiming Fortran will overtake Java because of how many supercomputers use it.
P.S. I actually own a Nook in large part because of the 1984 incident.
The only definition of rape that that lets you get away with it would ALSO call every single ugly woman that has sex with a drunk man a rapists. (Re-read that sentence - You are claiming that women rape men). Just because you have second thoughts DAYS after you agreed to have sex with someone does not mean you were raped.
1. Writing down your passwords is far worse than what I do. Better to use a stupid password that requires someone that I know (and likely to want to impersonate me) to figure out a method of testing all the stupid passwords, than writing it down and having a room-mate/girlfriend happen across it one day. Sure they may not use it right away, but what if you get into a fight... 2. Writing down a password is more effort than I am willing to use for something like Discovery channel.
2. Assange is also one of the douchey-est asswipes I have ever heard of. What he did to those women may not have been rape by any american legal definition of the word, but he is still the kind of loser I would warn my sister and niece away from (of course that doesn't say much about the two loose women that slept with him either.).
3. Moore is also a fairly douchey, even if he often supports moral causes, he tends to do so rather unethically. Moore and Asasange make a good pair and they should help each other out.
4. It releaves me of the nagging thought that I should help out Assange with cash. I mean, he may be a total douchey asswipe, but he shouldn't go to jail. The morons calling him a terrorist need to get a grip. Terrorists KILL people they hate. When all you do is print/publish/write crap about people you hate it is called being the "loyal opposition". If we could get Bin Laden to stop trying to kill us and only publish our nasty secrets, that would be a huge victory.
So I am pretty happy about this situation. One nasty person helping out another nasty person that was falsely accused, so that I don't have to do it myself.
The idea that a password is neccessary for such an account is idiotic. No one cares about hacking it (or if you do, then you have an unhealthy obsession with TV).
Gawker is a similar timewaster. Wasting your brain power to create/remember a good password for it is foolish.
I see nothing wrong with using "123456" or "password" for it. I am also pretty sure that most intelligent people that use stupid passwords for stupid web sites, don't use stupid passwords for their bank account or their primary email (but maybe for an email they feed to spammers that offer 'deals' if you give them your email.)
I saw the computer version earlier and while it was good enough to beat me, the Jeopardy champions are far better. In addition, the version I saw demonstrated was 'advanced' - by that they meant that further advancements resulted in only tiny, incremental performace increases, not by significant ones.
1. Jeopardy is 99.9% wordplay of some kind. Every single category has some kind of wordplay. Watch the show. 2. Computers are much WORSE at facts - unless they were specifically programmed with a small subset of facts. Human memory far exceeds computer memory and is far better at 'SPEEDY' retrieval of facts from a large database. The only reason you think computers are good at facts is that we restrict computers to small databases and then only consult that database for those facts.
and 2. Because this is not a legal issue but a simple logic issue. The fact that a few radical conservative activists judges exist and are too stupid to do simple math:
If: X = Y+1
then: X-1 = Y
and: X-2 = Y-1
Simple math. If the US congress has the power and ability to both raise taxes and also to give a tax break, then US congress has the power and ability to simplify things and just say "We give a tax penalty. That is simply LOGIC. Not law. The Supreme Court will in fact rule that way.
The only people that can't understand this are morons too stupid to do basic math. But that is NOT what is going on. The people behind these lawsuits are generally not that stupid. They know the law is valid, but they just hate it. So these partisan activist that LOST the congressional vote and are trying to come up with SOMETHING to go against the will of the people.
Yes, the majority of people do want this law - 40% hate the law, 30% like the law, and the other 30% are upset that it did not FURTHER. They wanted the public option. You lost 40% to 60%.
As for charging people an extra $1,00 per year if they failed to buy a solar roof... THEY ALREADY DO THAT YOU!
The fact that you are too stupid to tell the difference between raising everyone's taxes by $1,000 and then offering a $1,000 tax refund for buying a solar roof and instead just straight forwardly charging people $1,000 if they don't buy a solar roof tells me that you are MORE than stupid enough to buy this new Cadillac I just bought but can't afford the upkeep on.
I promise it is in very good shape. It's a steal at only $2,000 (warning, you will have to continue paying the upkeep contract that I bought from my sister. I swear I got a very good deal - so I locked it in at only $1,000 a month for 10 years.)
Your problem is not that you have misinterpreted Jefferson and Madison (although it sounds like you have done). Instead it is your clear inability to understand Math and Economics.
The power to raise taxes combines with the power to offer people a tax break for doing something is EXACTLY identical to offering a tax penalty for not doing something. There is NO difference.
Congress can raise taxes. They don't like doing this, because it costs them votes, but they have that power. No sane person would claim they don't have that power. Similarly, they have to power to create tax loopholes. They have been doing it practically since they were created. There is NO real difference - financially, ethically, or legally - between those two abilities and the power to create a tax penalty.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Just as the government can put a tax on you doing something, they can put a tax on you not doing something. Just as the government can say "we give everyone that have children a tax reduction", that same government can say "We give everyone that buys health care, a tax reduction."
The only problem here is a bunch of morons are too stupid to think their own argument through. They get caught up in words like 'require' but don't bother to look at what the law actually does.
The fact that the government choose to use words that sound like they are criminalizing it does not affect the actual content of the law. The fact that you can't find anything at all actually wrong with the law forces you to concentrate on irrelavant crap.
Claiming that the Federal government does not have the ability to tax people for doing something is ridiculous. If the government has the right to tax us for doing something, it has the right to tax us for not doing something.
Their arugment is specious.
Any politician with a security detail does not need to be patted down. I wonder how they verify that the politician (and their security detail) are who they say they are.
In addition pilots no longer need to be patted down.
But they screwed over flight attendants - who have to undergo the same extensive FBI investigation and fingerprinting that pilots do.
This is the TSA's own number. They quote it based on the low level of radiation. I trust this number, because radiation does not change depending on which machine it comes from.
Of course, the odds of getting killed by a terrorist are less than one in 60 million.
The TSA claim their searches are 'reasonable'. Then why do they say that congressman don't have to go through it? If it reasonable, then everyone should have to do it.
They consistently say things like "You give up your rights when you buy the ticket."
No. Our rights do NOT go away. The law is clear - the rights remain. The definition of reasonable is what changes. And no reasonable parent man would allow their 14 year old girl pictured nude or fondled. Similarly, no reasonable person would allow the searches the TSA has demanded. This includes the basic stuff and the more viable junk like harassing women for traveling with breast milk, or Armed US soldiers traveling with rifles (OK - let them go) and nail clippers (NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. GIVE IT HERE.), stealing watches, cash from purses, etc..
The TSA has NEVER, not ONCE caught an actual terrorist planning on committing a hijacking that they were not previously given the name. Not once has any metal detector or pat down discovered a terrorist that we were not already looking for.
90% of the time it is just people surfing when they have no work to do. That is NOT mis-use of internet, anymore than having people carry a work blackberry when they are not being paid to be working violates overtime laws.
If someone does their job, does not visit porn, does not use up excessive bandwidth, they are not 'misusing the internet'.
If you don't do your job, then you should be fired, and it should NOT matter if you are not doing your job because you are texting/talking to your friends on the phone (your personal one), or if you are using the massively capable communication device sitting in front of you.
Imagine you are a CEO and you ask your secretary to confirm your personal vacation plans. If she does that on the internet would that be "MISUSE"? What if the CEO does it himself? No. Neither is Misuse. It only becomes misuse if the personal stuff gets in the way of your job, and then it is poor work habits, not anything to do with the interent. This is just evil shmucks trying to redefine perfectably normal behavior that everyone (INCLUDING CEO'S) does.
Of course this also means that when I fall asleep watching a TV show I will now sleep the entire night instead of being wakened up by the obnoxious commercial.