Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna, and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo, reducing it to rubble.
We call it something else when someone steals money from you, and then uses your stolen money to buy something, and then sets up shop in opposition to those in civil society, i.e. those who only ask for your money, and don't take it from you at gunpoint.
This is a very badly written, badly reasoned article, nearly incoherent (guessing not everyone there is a lawyer), but if I'm understanding it correctly, is it saying that MS is producing statements that are anti-ODF, some objective, some not (hello, it's marketing, people), and then some Wikipedia editors are using that as sources to edit the ODF article on Wikipedia? And one guy from MS, who happens to be employed in the same field of document formats, edits the article too? And that's a super serious scandal worthy of posting to/.? Are you serious?
I have no problems with models, or saying "if we assume this and this and this, and if we're right about this, and maybe if this is true, then doing X may result in Y." What drives me crazy is when people willfully misrepresent the practical usefulness of models for political ends, or the scientifically illiterate media jumps upon a study, and starts blathering that we know something to be true, so we'd better do what they, or the media's favored politicians, want us to do. The more complex the model, the more problems in relying upon it, and most of the models thrown at us are the sketchiest models, with the least understood principles of operation, with the most assumed variables, with the most hysteria regarding what the models predict.
In principle, i.e. in theory, sure, but in reality? There are too many constantly changing variables to calculate. Unless you're both omnipotent and omniscient, it won't work.
This is inaccurate. I disagree with the chronic and consistent misuse of computer modeling, such as within economics or climate modeling, where the variables are assumed to exist without any rational basis, empirical history is disregarded as being a nuisance to the desired results, and past mistakes in the model are ignored or covered up. I have no problems with computer modeling in designing, say, a car, airplane, or bridge.
There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can. It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all. This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst. Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers. People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed. Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.
Voluntary cooperation, recognizing the bedrock principle of private property, and the right to give it away for free if one likes, isn't communism or socialism. That's anarcho-individualism, and could easily be anarcho-capitalism.
Well, if you look around his website, he does seem a little dangerous, if not likely to knowingly violate any criminal statutes. Also, stupid. It sounds like he was trolling the Loomis personnel, and then he was actually idiot enough to attempt to troll police. After that, he continued his total and utter display of lack of common sense by spending a good deal of time shooting his mouth off at the police, instead of keeping his mouth absolutely shut the moment he was arrested, until conferring with his lawyer. Obviously the Loomis people in this situation were jerks, and the police, not uncommonly, were behaving in an abusive fashion, but I don't think the ACLU or anyone else is going to want to expend much effort on defending this guy. Let's face it, he mostly got into trouble because he was being an asshole at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Which doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make him an innocent victim either.
I'm fairly certain "Nice little company you have there, enjoying your funds stolen from the taxpayer? Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to those funds, would you? Course not. Now, about those strings we said didn't exist, but are actually very much attached..." is, at minimum, a constructive firing.
There hasn't been a popular revolt or backlash against that, but if people were aware of it, the majority would be against it, and even if not, morality is not measured by popular opinion. So that prong only applies to a subjective analysis.
If El Jeffe Obama can fire the CEO of General Motors, and Sarko just fires a web designer, doesn't that make France look quite a bit less along the path of dictatorship than the US?
I am admittedly not a mathematician, but I do have a good understanding of economics and finance, and I am not seeing how a pattern found in prime numbers could have any application to stock market analysis. Where is the interaction between prime numbers and the praxeology of buying and selling securities? Even if you're only focusing on automated buying and selling, those algorithms were still programmed by humans with their own subjective approaches and underlying premises.
If an object is advertised and sold as legitimate, but is a reproduction, and the seller was aware or had reason to know that the artifact was a reproduction, they have committed fraud, a crime. The fact that it is very likely that the item is being shipped across State lines places it in the stream of interstate commerce, which makes it a Federal crime.
If people can't live without the internet, how did humans exist throughout most of history? How are people alive in socialist utopias, such as Cuba or North Korea, where access to the internet for all but the ruling elite is a crime? How do so many people, who voluntarily choose to eschew the internet and computers, survive? Just because someone can't imagine their lives without a product or service does not mean that they literally require it to survive, or even if, peculiarly, that they will literally die without the internet, anyone else would be so affected be such a common and non-threatening condition.
K, I read through the West Headnotes. Now I'd like to know what other people think the majority opinion in Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. was, because I'm not seeing any issues between that and this.
The central planners are going to step into an industry suffering from heavy handed regulation, and magically undue their own damage? What will end up happening is an absurdly expensive and inefficient boondoggle, with vested interests (ie people who can't see indirect taxation, but want their broadband deceptively cheap), that will end up a Minitelization of what was a functioning, quasi-free-market network in a national socialist economy, where the people get reamed, and pro-government Big Business gets rich. I can't imagine precisely how this would blow up, but has everyone forgotten Goldman Sachs and AIG already?
Not to mention this is blatantly unconstitutional, a further usurpation of the sovereign States, and self-aggrandizement to the central government. There are no enumerated powers delegated to the Federal government by the several States that include the phrase "national telecommunications network."
To clarify my previous post, he could be tried by another State if he is charged with wrongdoing that would bring him under the jurisdiction of that State. Greatly simplifying, he would have to be charged with a civil violation or criminal act of Alaskan law, while under Alaskan jurisdiction.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, so there's no prospect of him being retried on this in the federal courts.
He could be tried by the State of Alaska on the charges (or any other State), but only such charges that do not trigger federal subject matter jurisdiction. I haven't paid close attention to the case, but I thought the charges were related to alleged federal, not state, violations and/or criminal acts, meaning no prospect of state prosecution.
Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October.
Doesn't matter, and surprised/. would post such a trolling and/or clueless aside. The judge ruled the prosecution mishandled evidence and witnesses. The finders of fact, the jurors, were therefore incapable of reaching a just verdict. Their opinions don't matter, because what they heard and saw has been ruled as hopelessly corrupted by prosecutorial misconduct.
I think I did pretty well, considering I had no intention of giving a time line of the Cold War...I would have started with WWII, if not further back, for background.
The USSR would have collapsed if the Western nations hadn't ended its blockade on the Bolsheviks just as they were about to be crushed by their own people, allowing the Bolshies to openly and without interference sell their stolen gold and silver on the international market. The USSR would have collapsed far sooner if they weren't being given economic aid by the West, too. SDI did greatly assist in pushing the tottering disastrous experiment in socialism on its ass, as it forced the USSR to divert massive amounts of resources to countering it, even if SDI didn't pan out as a real product by the time the Cold War ended. The USSR would have collapsed anyways, but SDI hastened its demise, therefore preventing death and suffering that would have continued under the socialist jackboot. Which, in and of itself, is a good thing.
Reagan's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Create defenses that make them impotent, and trust but verify.
End result of Reagan's plan: Collapse of the USSR, and reduction of the probability of nuclear armageddon.
Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons, sign on to a treaty that would have no effect upon those that would actually use nuclear weapons, and ensure that nuclear deterrence would eventually fail, as there would be increasing uncertainty whether the nuclear weapons of the nations that had signed the Test Ban Treaty had functioning nuclear weapons or not, especially if you're going to then go and end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US et al against those whose moral duty to act includes nuking us.
Unstable meaning what? The bubble will "pop," leaving the ship half-way to its intended destination, requiring a second jump? Or "unstable," meaning the ship will be torn into meaty bits?
I accidentally Hawking radiation. Is this bad? Can a drone ship survive Hawking radiation?
Slashdot Mirror
Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna, and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo, reducing it to rubble.
We call it something else when someone steals money from you, and then uses your stolen money to buy something, and then sets up shop in opposition to those in civil society, i.e. those who only ask for your money, and don't take it from you at gunpoint.
This is a very badly written, badly reasoned article, nearly incoherent (guessing not everyone there is a lawyer), but if I'm understanding it correctly, is it saying that MS is producing statements that are anti-ODF, some objective, some not (hello, it's marketing, people), and then some Wikipedia editors are using that as sources to edit the ODF article on Wikipedia? And one guy from MS, who happens to be employed in the same field of document formats, edits the article too? And that's a super serious scandal worthy of posting to /.? Are you serious?
I have no problems with models, or saying "if we assume this and this and this, and if we're right about this, and maybe if this is true, then doing X may result in Y." What drives me crazy is when people willfully misrepresent the practical usefulness of models for political ends, or the scientifically illiterate media jumps upon a study, and starts blathering that we know something to be true, so we'd better do what they, or the media's favored politicians, want us to do. The more complex the model, the more problems in relying upon it, and most of the models thrown at us are the sketchiest models, with the least understood principles of operation, with the most assumed variables, with the most hysteria regarding what the models predict.
In principle, i.e. in theory, sure, but in reality? There are too many constantly changing variables to calculate. Unless you're both omnipotent and omniscient, it won't work.
This is inaccurate. I disagree with the chronic and consistent misuse of computer modeling, such as within economics or climate modeling, where the variables are assumed to exist without any rational basis, empirical history is disregarded as being a nuisance to the desired results, and past mistakes in the model are ignored or covered up. I have no problems with computer modeling in designing, say, a car, airplane, or bridge.
What are the underlying economic premises of this machine? I cannot discern this from its diagram or descriptions, but it just looks wrong to me.
There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can. It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all. This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst. Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers. People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed. Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.
Voluntary cooperation, recognizing the bedrock principle of private property, and the right to give it away for free if one likes, isn't communism or socialism. That's anarcho-individualism, and could easily be anarcho-capitalism.
Well, if you look around his website, he does seem a little dangerous, if not likely to knowingly violate any criminal statutes. Also, stupid. It sounds like he was trolling the Loomis personnel, and then he was actually idiot enough to attempt to troll police. After that, he continued his total and utter display of lack of common sense by spending a good deal of time shooting his mouth off at the police, instead of keeping his mouth absolutely shut the moment he was arrested, until conferring with his lawyer. Obviously the Loomis people in this situation were jerks, and the police, not uncommonly, were behaving in an abusive fashion, but I don't think the ACLU or anyone else is going to want to expend much effort on defending this guy. Let's face it, he mostly got into trouble because he was being an asshole at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Which doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make him an innocent victim either.
There hasn't been a popular revolt or backlash against that, but if people were aware of it, the majority would be against it, and even if not, morality is not measured by popular opinion. So that prong only applies to a subjective analysis.
If El Jeffe Obama can fire the CEO of General Motors, and Sarko just fires a web designer, doesn't that make France look quite a bit less along the path of dictatorship than the US?
I am admittedly not a mathematician, but I do have a good understanding of economics and finance, and I am not seeing how a pattern found in prime numbers could have any application to stock market analysis. Where is the interaction between prime numbers and the praxeology of buying and selling securities? Even if you're only focusing on automated buying and selling, those algorithms were still programmed by humans with their own subjective approaches and underlying premises.
If an object is advertised and sold as legitimate, but is a reproduction, and the seller was aware or had reason to know that the artifact was a reproduction, they have committed fraud, a crime. The fact that it is very likely that the item is being shipped across State lines places it in the stream of interstate commerce, which makes it a Federal crime.
If people can't live without the internet, how did humans exist throughout most of history? How are people alive in socialist utopias, such as Cuba or North Korea, where access to the internet for all but the ruling elite is a crime? How do so many people, who voluntarily choose to eschew the internet and computers, survive? Just because someone can't imagine their lives without a product or service does not mean that they literally require it to survive, or even if, peculiarly, that they will literally die without the internet, anyone else would be so affected be such a common and non-threatening condition.
K, I read through the West Headnotes. Now I'd like to know what other people think the majority opinion in Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. was, because I'm not seeing any issues between that and this.
Give a case cite, or at the very least the parties involved, and maybe we will.
Not to mention this is blatantly unconstitutional, a further usurpation of the sovereign States, and self-aggrandizement to the central government. There are no enumerated powers delegated to the Federal government by the several States that include the phrase "national telecommunications network."
To clarify my previous post, he could be tried by another State if he is charged with wrongdoing that would bring him under the jurisdiction of that State. Greatly simplifying, he would have to be charged with a civil violation or criminal act of Alaskan law, while under Alaskan jurisdiction.
He could be tried by the State of Alaska on the charges (or any other State), but only such charges that do not trigger federal subject matter jurisdiction. I haven't paid close attention to the case, but I thought the charges were related to alleged federal, not state, violations and/or criminal acts, meaning no prospect of state prosecution.
Legally, he's not a convicted felon.
Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October.
Doesn't matter, and surprised /. would post such a trolling and/or clueless aside. The judge ruled the prosecution mishandled evidence and witnesses. The finders of fact, the jurors, were therefore incapable of reaching a just verdict. Their opinions don't matter, because what they heard and saw has been ruled as hopelessly corrupted by prosecutorial misconduct.
I think I did pretty well, considering I had no intention of giving a time line of the Cold War...I would have started with WWII, if not further back, for background.
The USSR would have collapsed if the Western nations hadn't ended its blockade on the Bolsheviks just as they were about to be crushed by their own people, allowing the Bolshies to openly and without interference sell their stolen gold and silver on the international market. The USSR would have collapsed far sooner if they weren't being given economic aid by the West, too. SDI did greatly assist in pushing the tottering disastrous experiment in socialism on its ass, as it forced the USSR to divert massive amounts of resources to countering it, even if SDI didn't pan out as a real product by the time the Cold War ended. The USSR would have collapsed anyways, but SDI hastened its demise, therefore preventing death and suffering that would have continued under the socialist jackboot. Which, in and of itself, is a good thing.
End result of Reagan's plan: Collapse of the USSR, and reduction of the probability of nuclear armageddon.
Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons, sign on to a treaty that would have no effect upon those that would actually use nuclear weapons, and ensure that nuclear deterrence would eventually fail, as there would be increasing uncertainty whether the nuclear weapons of the nations that had signed the Test Ban Treaty had functioning nuclear weapons or not, especially if you're going to then go and end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US et al against those whose moral duty to act includes nuking us.
I accidentally Hawking radiation. Is this bad? Can a drone ship survive Hawking radiation?