Probably because modern Russia came to be after the end of the Soviet Union, while Finland broke away from a previous iteration of Russia...
The American system can be dated to either 1790 when the last state under the Articles of Confederation ratified the new Constitution, or can be dated to 1777 or 1781 when the Articles were completed and gave legitimacy to the fledgling nation or when they were fully ratified. Since the Articles were supplanted by the Constitution through means that the Articles required, ie, unanimous vote by the constituent states, the establishment of the Articles makes sense.
One can argue that the American system does not reset at the civil war because the system antebellum remained intact through and subsequent to the civil war, reasserting itself over the rebelling territories and continuing to follow its own procedures.
I'm a lot more worried about forged tags or rewriting tags to send bags other places.
One could steal luggage or could possibly redirect bags containing contraband, while the bag is already in-circulation and away from the passenger or courier, if there's a way to access the luggage tag via smartphone without having to physically touch or see the tag. The phone could be in the bag itself and could reprogram the tag remotely.
I simply do not trust an electronic system to be any more foolproof than a paper system, given the sheer number of infrastructure-grade compromised electronic systems. Being that, I don't see a reason to spend an inordinate amount of money on a new system that won't deliver any better results.
My friends are my community, we don't feel a need to rent space or pay membership dues, we help each other because we're friends. If someone needs to cut steel, the guy with the portable plasma cutter comes over because it's fun, not because he's being paid to provide plasma cutting services. The biggest 'payment' is whoever is being helped provides the pizza or beer or the like.
Come to think of it, the only semiformally-established club that I'm in has dues of $15 per year, and those dues are basically there to pay for food and party supplies. We just are friends that meet at each others' houses.
Do these laser cutters and 3d printers result in a finished product that's any better than I can make with a crappy drill press?
To my view, it's bunch of amateurs that think they're pros. In reality, that smelly guy with the portable welder and a hatchback full of scraps of metal stock who field-repairs trash compactors produces better results...
Douglas Adams really was right about human nature in his concept of the B-Ark...
My maternal grandfather's shop wasn't single-purpose. He was a machinist that kept the manufacturing equipment at a Whirlpool plant running, and at home he tinkered with machines, cars, wood, etc. He hadn't gotten into electronics, but that's because that was in its infancy comparatively.
My friends come over and we work on stuff, sometimes my stuff, sometimes their stuff, and that varies in type as well. I've assembled automotive engines from parts and I build model rockets and rebuild automatic transmissions, and repair computers on the same workbenches, depending on what I want or need to do at any given time. Some day we'll get back to assembling that trebuchet.
As to technology itself, it's all technology. Even hand planes and manual augers are technology. They're not new technology, but they still qualify for the term.
I guess I look at the presence of a very expensive piece of machinery that probably isn't used to its intended duty cycle or complexity as a bit of a waste, as something there for show, rather than for real productivity. It's there because it's trendy, not because its use is well understood.
Both grandfathers had workshops, as does my dad, most of my uncles, many of my aunts, my father-in-law, and I have one as well. There were shops in junior high and high school to do woodworking, welding, automotive, jewelry, and even stained glass. The tools in our shops are certainly tailored to what we work on or what we think will be useful, but most shops have been very general-purpose; we could work on just about anything.
Can someone please explain to me this new fascination? I find it kind of insulting, this "discovery" of tinkering is like a shadow of Europe "discovering" the already-populated Americas. People have been building things for thousands of years in their workshops without this need to call them "makerspaces"... We don't do it because we expect it to be cool to others, we do it because we like it for ourselves.
This "maker" emphasis seems like a bunch of damn posers trying to establish and subsequently ruin a "scene"...
To play Devil's Advocate, if they're technology demonstrators, but are not meant for the application for which they're demonstrating, then what are they for?
Uh, why would it be profitable to have a signature from the wrong author?
I don't personally care much if an author signs the book or not. Having met a few authors at lit cons, their work, not their lives, are what make it interesting to me.
It would probably help if they'd honor their web prices in their stores.
I looked up the new David Weber title last night, and it was about $18 on the website, $25 in the stores, and they don't honor the web price in the store, and after shipping it basically costs the same. Found this out calling the store.
I didn't bother to buy it. I'll wait for a copy to show up at a used bookstore. I only have about a dozen of those to choose from around here.
Not only don't they get medals, but both they and Chewbacca had to appear in-character in-costume for George Lucas' AFI Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony... They didn't make Carrie Fisher put on the Leia costume or Billy Dee Williams wear a smashing blue cape... Peter Mayhew, Anthony Daniels, and Kenny Baker should have gotten some legitimate recognition for their parts in making Star Wars a success for Lucas...
On a sidenote, Firefox spellchecks "Chewbacca" and suggests "Backache" as a replacement...
The problem is that rarely do the actual workers have a firm grasp of the situation when it comes to the sanctity of these rulings, especially when the actual workers are not even government employees.
The IRS has problems with people opening up the tax records of politicians and celebrities. The agency that processes passports has problems with people similarly opening records that they have no business being in.
There simply is no way for individuals to be "secure" with this kind of data being kept. There's no guarantee that it will be truly expunged at the five year mark either.
Well, you have my sympathy for the struggle that you describe. I have never experienced something that strong so I cannot empathize nor will I pretend to.
I do not argue that homosexuality is a choice. I do not think that it is a choice.
What I do wonder about, is what factors lead to self-identification in the first place. We see examples of homosexuality in nature all of the time, but the only examples of species changing sex are very rare species that manage to do so when the genders are significantly out of balance. Obviously we cannot ask a non-human how they feel about their gender, and on top of that we probably don't even know if our societal structure that places such emphasis on gender roles is part of what causes such problems for people.
I do not claim to fully understand the situation, so please don't misconstrue my lack of understanding for strong judgement. As I said, I don't really know what to think, and given that it doesn't really affect me I'm inclined to not interfere with those who are going through whatever they're experiencing. I just worry about the ramifications for those who do something and then don't like it but can't go back.
For discussions like this I want to know the general motivations of the women involved. Not for a "white knight" premise, as I long-ago gave up on saving people that either didn't want to be saved or would jump right back into the problems again anyway, but because I want to know if our arguing about this without being the employer, the woman hired, or even the participant in many cases matters at all.
I have known several women that craved the kind of attention that these paid models receive, and would do things to get that attention regardless of any positive compensation. These women seemed to be wired that way.
By contrast I have known women that engage in attention-drawing behavior because they manage to manipulate those whose attention they draw, giving them a bit of a measure of power over their subjects, at least temporarily.
I have also been acquainted with women who understand that they do not have many other skills, and using their bodies for attention to make money is the most fiscally lucrative choice available to them, if not without risk.
My point is that if they don't feel that they're being exploited, then it's a lot harder to convince them that there's harm in what they're doing, even if that harm is in attitudes spread across the culture towards women in general. It's a dog-eat-dog world, and while we try to build culture and try to have ideals, when it comes down to it we're very likely to do what's in our selfish best interest rather than to do what's in the interests of a group as a whole.
I know that you're posting AC so you probably won't see my reply, but here goes...
It's amazing that, in a day where we can accept people are born gay, that it isn't a choice, that we will mock and degrade people who feel that their external sex doesn't match their internal gender.
I see one big, important distinction between homosexuality and transsexuality in your example. Homosexuality doesn't require a third-party to participate to make you what you into what your feelings tell you that you should be. Someone who has sexual attraction to those of the same gender is a homosexual whether or not they ever fulfill their attractions. By contrast, it requires active participation to have gender reassignment surgery to "correct" the external body appearance and genitalia.
If I question a particular individual's thoughts on transsexuality, it's because I know my own struggle with self-identity, without even considering any part of my body to be fundamentally incorrect, and I know that my self-identity changes over time. Because of understanding how my attitude toward myself can potentially change, I do not make permanent modifications to myself. Loads of people are very fickle about themselves, and will take actions that permanently change them without necessarily reasoning those decisions all of the way through.
Years ago, I was introduced to a young man who was going through his own crisis, he basically had run away from all of his friends and family and was struggling with the idea of having a sex-change operation in order to become a lesbian. At the time I was not in a position to comprehend the right questions, but at the same time I did not feel that the new friends that he had taken up with were the right people to advise him either. In my opinion he needed to find therapy that would cover why he wanted to do this, and by why I mean going over his life to attempt to help him understand, if even only for himself, why this was a desired course of action, before actually taking such an action.
I do not deny that I am not terribly supportive of gender reassignment, but at the same time, I will not obstruct either. I feel that it is only my business in the sense that I have to deal with people who sometimes come to regret important actions they took previously in life, and I think that someone must be absolutely, positively certain beyond any doubt at all that something this permanent is the right course of action before doing something that can't really be undone.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I wonder if just empty shipping containers would be the best answer.
Probably because modern Russia came to be after the end of the Soviet Union, while Finland broke away from a previous iteration of Russia...
The American system can be dated to either 1790 when the last state under the Articles of Confederation ratified the new Constitution, or can be dated to 1777 or 1781 when the Articles were completed and gave legitimacy to the fledgling nation or when they were fully ratified. Since the Articles were supplanted by the Constitution through means that the Articles required, ie, unanimous vote by the constituent states, the establishment of the Articles makes sense.
One can argue that the American system does not reset at the civil war because the system antebellum remained intact through and subsequent to the civil war, reasserting itself over the rebelling territories and continuing to follow its own procedures.
I'm a lot more worried about forged tags or rewriting tags to send bags other places.
One could steal luggage or could possibly redirect bags containing contraband, while the bag is already in-circulation and away from the passenger or courier, if there's a way to access the luggage tag via smartphone without having to physically touch or see the tag. The phone could be in the bag itself and could reprogram the tag remotely.
I simply do not trust an electronic system to be any more foolproof than a paper system, given the sheer number of infrastructure-grade compromised electronic systems. Being that, I don't see a reason to spend an inordinate amount of money on a new system that won't deliver any better results.
I don't think that users of this will need one...
No, people shouldn't overinflate their own importance or ability or most importantly, results.
My friends are my community, we don't feel a need to rent space or pay membership dues, we help each other because we're friends. If someone needs to cut steel, the guy with the portable plasma cutter comes over because it's fun, not because he's being paid to provide plasma cutting services. The biggest 'payment' is whoever is being helped provides the pizza or beer or the like.
Come to think of it, the only semiformally-established club that I'm in has dues of $15 per year, and those dues are basically there to pay for food and party supplies. We just are friends that meet at each others' houses.
I hadn't thought of that...
I wonder if the "Sawstop" concept in a table saw has been applied to other power tools yet or not...
Do these laser cutters and 3d printers result in a finished product that's any better than I can make with a crappy drill press?
To my view, it's bunch of amateurs that think they're pros. In reality, that smelly guy with the portable welder and a hatchback full of scraps of metal stock who field-repairs trash compactors produces better results...
Douglas Adams really was right about human nature in his concept of the B-Ark...
Parachute Pants, for when you absolutely, positively need to shop lift that car battery...
My maternal grandfather's shop wasn't single-purpose. He was a machinist that kept the manufacturing equipment at a Whirlpool plant running, and at home he tinkered with machines, cars, wood, etc. He hadn't gotten into electronics, but that's because that was in its infancy comparatively.
My friends come over and we work on stuff, sometimes my stuff, sometimes their stuff, and that varies in type as well. I've assembled automotive engines from parts and I build model rockets and rebuild automatic transmissions, and repair computers on the same workbenches, depending on what I want or need to do at any given time. Some day we'll get back to assembling that trebuchet.
As to technology itself, it's all technology. Even hand planes and manual augers are technology. They're not new technology, but they still qualify for the term.
I guess I look at the presence of a very expensive piece of machinery that probably isn't used to its intended duty cycle or complexity as a bit of a waste, as something there for show, rather than for real productivity. It's there because it's trendy, not because its use is well understood.
Both grandfathers had workshops, as does my dad, most of my uncles, many of my aunts, my father-in-law, and I have one as well. There were shops in junior high and high school to do woodworking, welding, automotive, jewelry, and even stained glass. The tools in our shops are certainly tailored to what we work on or what we think will be useful, but most shops have been very general-purpose; we could work on just about anything.
Can someone please explain to me this new fascination? I find it kind of insulting, this "discovery" of tinkering is like a shadow of Europe "discovering" the already-populated Americas. People have been building things for thousands of years in their workshops without this need to call them "makerspaces"... We don't do it because we expect it to be cool to others, we do it because we like it for ourselves.
This "maker" emphasis seems like a bunch of damn posers trying to establish and subsequently ruin a "scene"...
To play Devil's Advocate, if they're technology demonstrators, but are not meant for the application for which they're demonstrating, then what are they for?
Wouldn't it be cheating if he rows across the ocean in a solar-powered boat?
?
Uh, why would it be profitable to have a signature from the wrong author?
I don't personally care much if an author signs the book or not. Having met a few authors at lit cons, their work, not their lives, are what make it interesting to me.
No wonder the books smell like coffee after awhile...
If it were good coffee that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...
It would probably help if they'd honor their web prices in their stores.
I looked up the new David Weber title last night, and it was about $18 on the website, $25 in the stores, and they don't honor the web price in the store, and after shipping it basically costs the same. Found this out calling the store.
I didn't bother to buy it. I'll wait for a copy to show up at a used bookstore. I only have about a dozen of those to choose from around here.
Butbutbut...
He had a hot girlfriend! He must be some kind of superspy or something!
I wonder how much attention we'd be paying this individual if he hadn't left a hot girlfriend behind...
I'm not surprised. I met him in 2009 and he's surprisingly thin for his height.
Yes I have. And no, I was not advocating for her putting one on either.
Though she probably could pull off the bounty hunter one still...
Not only don't they get medals, but both they and Chewbacca had to appear in-character in-costume for George Lucas' AFI Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony... They didn't make Carrie Fisher put on the Leia costume or Billy Dee Williams wear a smashing blue cape... Peter Mayhew, Anthony Daniels, and Kenny Baker should have gotten some legitimate recognition for their parts in making Star Wars a success for Lucas...
On a sidenote, Firefox spellchecks "Chewbacca" and suggests "Backache" as a replacement...
The problem is that rarely do the actual workers have a firm grasp of the situation when it comes to the sanctity of these rulings, especially when the actual workers are not even government employees.
The IRS has problems with people opening up the tax records of politicians and celebrities. The agency that processes passports has problems with people similarly opening records that they have no business being in.
There simply is no way for individuals to be "secure" with this kind of data being kept. There's no guarantee that it will be truly expunged at the five year mark either.
Well, you have my sympathy for the struggle that you describe. I have never experienced something that strong so I cannot empathize nor will I pretend to.
I do not argue that homosexuality is a choice. I do not think that it is a choice.
What I do wonder about, is what factors lead to self-identification in the first place. We see examples of homosexuality in nature all of the time, but the only examples of species changing sex are very rare species that manage to do so when the genders are significantly out of balance. Obviously we cannot ask a non-human how they feel about their gender, and on top of that we probably don't even know if our societal structure that places such emphasis on gender roles is part of what causes such problems for people.
I do not claim to fully understand the situation, so please don't misconstrue my lack of understanding for strong judgement. As I said, I don't really know what to think, and given that it doesn't really affect me I'm inclined to not interfere with those who are going through whatever they're experiencing. I just worry about the ramifications for those who do something and then don't like it but can't go back.
For discussions like this I want to know the general motivations of the women involved. Not for a "white knight" premise, as I long-ago gave up on saving people that either didn't want to be saved or would jump right back into the problems again anyway, but because I want to know if our arguing about this without being the employer, the woman hired, or even the participant in many cases matters at all.
I have known several women that craved the kind of attention that these paid models receive, and would do things to get that attention regardless of any positive compensation. These women seemed to be wired that way.
By contrast I have known women that engage in attention-drawing behavior because they manage to manipulate those whose attention they draw, giving them a bit of a measure of power over their subjects, at least temporarily.
I have also been acquainted with women who understand that they do not have many other skills, and using their bodies for attention to make money is the most fiscally lucrative choice available to them, if not without risk.
My point is that if they don't feel that they're being exploited, then it's a lot harder to convince them that there's harm in what they're doing, even if that harm is in attitudes spread across the culture towards women in general. It's a dog-eat-dog world, and while we try to build culture and try to have ideals, when it comes down to it we're very likely to do what's in our selfish best interest rather than to do what's in the interests of a group as a whole.
I see one big, important distinction between homosexuality and transsexuality in your example. Homosexuality doesn't require a third-party to participate to make you what you into what your feelings tell you that you should be. Someone who has sexual attraction to those of the same gender is a homosexual whether or not they ever fulfill their attractions. By contrast, it requires active participation to have gender reassignment surgery to "correct" the external body appearance and genitalia.
If I question a particular individual's thoughts on transsexuality, it's because I know my own struggle with self-identity, without even considering any part of my body to be fundamentally incorrect, and I know that my self-identity changes over time. Because of understanding how my attitude toward myself can potentially change, I do not make permanent modifications to myself. Loads of people are very fickle about themselves, and will take actions that permanently change them without necessarily reasoning those decisions all of the way through.
Years ago, I was introduced to a young man who was going through his own crisis, he basically had run away from all of his friends and family and was struggling with the idea of having a sex-change operation in order to become a lesbian. At the time I was not in a position to comprehend the right questions, but at the same time I did not feel that the new friends that he had taken up with were the right people to advise him either. In my opinion he needed to find therapy that would cover why he wanted to do this, and by why I mean going over his life to attempt to help him understand, if even only for himself, why this was a desired course of action, before actually taking such an action.
I do not deny that I am not terribly supportive of gender reassignment, but at the same time, I will not obstruct either. I feel that it is only my business in the sense that I have to deal with people who sometimes come to regret important actions they took previously in life, and I think that someone must be absolutely, positively certain beyond any doubt at all that something this permanent is the right course of action before doing something that can't really be undone.