No, obviously they would be provided and paid for by the UK as a result of contractual provisions in London hosting agreement. Don't tell me there's no Drone Strike Clause. How could the IOC overlook that?
Originally the States were intended to be nearly completely separate sovereign entities, with a Federal government providing a limited role in dealing with external entities and mediating internal disputes. With the way the Supreme Court has expanded certain clauses in the Constitution, modern government bears little resemblance to what the intended balance of power was, which is why a bicameral legislature seems redundant today.
It was a way to slow government down, and while many of the "fast-forwards" happened to correct abuses they also set the precedent that it was alright to ignore process in favor of expediency. As a result, few respect the process anymore. Some don't because they believe it was a failure to use it as intended. Some don't because they recognize it frequently has been ignored, rather than being used as intended. Some don't because they conflate the way the process has been used with the way the process is supposed to be used.
In the end, I'm inclined to agree that there should be a unicameral legislature and a referendum process nationally.
Normally I'm so far onto the side of privacy where technology is concerned I'm about to fall off the edge of the board (in relation to what are legitimate uses of it by law enforcement to pursue investigations). However, after reading the article, and assuming the system cannot be triggered manually or by non-gunshot events (it apears the false positive rate is very low), there's no expectation of privacy and the exigent circumstances surrounding the legitimate belief any recording involves discharge of a firearm should make any other recorded sound admissible.
Well, there's a difference, but it's slight. Since the moon's orbital distance increases, the difference between a modern surf and a medieval surf is the medieval surf would have been a bit better. Well, except for the lack of decent surfboards, but let's not nitpick minor details like that.:)
He actually said he didn't know who the non-incumbent was, so the implication would be limited to the fact that he might know who the incumbent was. It's a stretch to read that as an implied link any more than I'm linked by a single degree to Kevin Bacon simply by fact that I recognize a reference to him.
Hey, I think I enjoyed your drivers license story more than you did.
If you enjoyed it at all, you enjoyed it more than I did.
Something to remember about V.C. Andrews books is that most (all but 9) of them weren't actually written by her. Granted, she wrote some sick, twisted shit when she was alive, but her stuff has been ghostwritten for the last 26 years.
Unfortunately that's true about more than just job opportunities. Equal opportunity should be expected, but anyone who believes equal outcomes are realistic (or worse, desirable) has a broken logic center.
You can also turn off the behavior. It's to make a fully-featured web browser functional on substandard hardware and substandard data networks. If your hardware only runs Mini but is on a fast connection, simply turn off remote rendering.
It must make large calculations difficult to only be able to count in units of 12. I wonder how many dozens equal the 22% of the global mobile browser market held by Opera...
This is what I came here to post. My first though upon reading the headline was "Oh please God no!"
I don't want my favorite browser frozen in time as Facebook oozes all over it, defiling as they go. I'd rather stab myself in the eye than take the time to hack Firefox into a Frankenstein's Monster version, Chrome doesn't have the features I use (even as an extension), and IE isn't even playing the same game.
The article doesn't directly reference the events which led to his discovery, but from his description the guard came in knowing he was there and having scoured the entire building to find him and yell at him.
He wasn't caught as a result of being stumbled over, he appears to have been caught because security found out through other means that he was squatting in the building. As a result, showing his badge wouldn't have done anything.
Indeed, which is why it is so stupid to say such absolute statements
Addressed and agreed explicitly. However, anecdotes don't mean you lack data, just that you lack it in sufficient form to prove to another person. Personal experiences can be a perfectly valid reason for distrusting a department, or segment thereof. While it doesn't excuse making sweeping generalizations as fact, they can certainly give you a reasonable basis for strong feelings (which many people then communicate poorly).
The A10 stuff is harder to find, but it is still there if you're willing to dig that deep.
Quite true, but that quickly surpasses "basic research on Google," which was what that part of my comment was directed at. It's not a quick study to find more than one or two cases falling outside the categories I outlined. In the digital age, if you're looking for those minority cases it might be more like it's buried on page A10000.
As for corruption claims, no, I tend to stick with the incidents which have actual, tangible proof, or those which have very substantial bodies of circumstantial evidence. I do know there are people who support the position based on little more than a general dislike of the police, but it is not a position without merit in many cases.
I'm sorry you have to live in a town that has such problems.
On the one hand I am too, but on the other it's resulted in the removal of the mayor, the city attorney, an associate city attorney, and the creation of an independent police ombudsman's office (though the Police Guild sued to prevent the office from having any investigatory powers, thus neutering it until they renegotiate their employment contracts). Of course, that's counterbalanced by the response from the City Police as previously-mentioned officer was escorted from court after being convicted of civil rights violations and obstruction of justice for beating a man and then lying about it: a public salute by 30-some-odd uniformed officers. This, of course, happened in plain view of the family of the man this officer killed. It was also after video came to light which resulted in him confessing to lying to investigators, so it's not like they could reasonably claim to believe he was innocent.
Mostly my point in posting was that there's very frequently good reason why people do not have faith in the police. The onus is on police to earn respect, rather than expecting it as a matter of course. It's par for the course to see hyperbole and absolute statements in comments about police corruption, and while that may lessen the impact of the statements it doesn't really lessen the fact that there is often a very valid basis for the perceptions which engender those comments.
The difference with the exchange wars was that the ILECs outright refused to comply with the law, instead dragging it out in the legislature and courts until a good portion of the CLECs declared bankruptcy. Apple has the cash to be able to weather that sort of abuse long enough to thrash Samsung in court for attempting to do the same thing.
The only workable link in the summary is to a snapshot of Jay's blog post. Nowhere in it is a link to the candidate suggested. The only person suggesting a link is Candice, on her blog (findable through links in the comments here). She goes pretty fell-on psycho in that same blog post, thus necessitating the use of many pounds of salt by neutral readers to accept anything said as factual.
I don't think it's particularly balanced to note he "may have a connection," when there is the word of only one person backing up that particular claim.
Yes, there could be an ulterior motive. However, that does not actually excuse the original infringement. In addition, if there were an ulterior motive, wouldn't it have been more effective to simply ignore her and let her sites remain dark for the duration of the complaint process?
We can't "know" any of those things, but we can make reasonable assumptions based on what is provided and the things that have had many eyes on them and couldn't be faked (she had the images posted on her sites and on Facebook, and has removed them all or had them removed). It just doesn't add up to some nefarious conspiracy.
Alright, they could have been faked. However, Jay is an absolutely evil-genius mastermind sockpuppeteer who has been planning for such contingencies for years in advance if that's the case...
Another hilarious aspect to this truly unhinged story: Her site is riddled with JavaScript designed to prevent the copying of anything. So, while it's alright for her to lift the occasional item for her own use, don't you try using anything from her site!*
*Not that I'd want to; the quality of her writing made my eyes bleed...
Yup. She turned around and claimed his request that GoDaddy reinstate her sites was admission of guilt. All it takes is a couple bad apples. This is why tactics get heavy-handed. People don't like dealing with the occasional crapstorm that comes from dealing with people like this, so they start to use a shotgun the first time, every time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yes, the summary did get that wrong. I meant the spirit, even if the letter wasn't exactly accurate.
No, obviously they would be provided and paid for by the UK as a result of contractual provisions in London hosting agreement. Don't tell me there's no Drone Strike Clause. How could the IOC overlook that?
Originally the States were intended to be nearly completely separate sovereign entities, with a Federal government providing a limited role in dealing with external entities and mediating internal disputes. With the way the Supreme Court has expanded certain clauses in the Constitution, modern government bears little resemblance to what the intended balance of power was, which is why a bicameral legislature seems redundant today.
It was a way to slow government down, and while many of the "fast-forwards" happened to correct abuses they also set the precedent that it was alright to ignore process in favor of expediency. As a result, few respect the process anymore. Some don't because they believe it was a failure to use it as intended. Some don't because they recognize it frequently has been ignored, rather than being used as intended. Some don't because they conflate the way the process has been used with the way the process is supposed to be used.
In the end, I'm inclined to agree that there should be a unicameral legislature and a referendum process nationally.
Normally I'm so far onto the side of privacy where technology is concerned I'm about to fall off the edge of the board (in relation to what are legitimate uses of it by law enforcement to pursue investigations). However, after reading the article, and assuming the system cannot be triggered manually or by non-gunshot events (it apears the false positive rate is very low), there's no expectation of privacy and the exigent circumstances surrounding the legitimate belief any recording involves discharge of a firearm should make any other recorded sound admissible.
This should be a non-issue.
Well, there's a difference, but it's slight. Since the moon's orbital distance increases, the difference between a modern surf and a medieval surf is the medieval surf would have been a bit better. Well, except for the lack of decent surfboards, but let's not nitpick minor details like that. :)
Yes, the quoted figure was obviously a gross overestimation regarding the percentage of a typical President which could be considered human.
I demand drone strikes on the laboratory!
Yeah really. I read the headline and the thought which immediately sprang to mind turned out to be the third sentence of the summary.
He actually said he didn't know who the non-incumbent was, so the implication would be limited to the fact that he might know who the incumbent was. It's a stretch to read that as an implied link any more than I'm linked by a single degree to Kevin Bacon simply by fact that I recognize a reference to him.
Hey, I think I enjoyed your drivers license story more than you did.
If you enjoyed it at all, you enjoyed it more than I did.
Here on Slashdot, we try to help people learn to be logical and live to a higher standard.
Sadly, even on Slashdot that "we" seems to be nearly as small a minority as it is elsewhere.
No fort saves in '81. :)
Something to remember about V.C. Andrews books is that most (all but 9) of them weren't actually written by her. Granted, she wrote some sick, twisted shit when she was alive, but her stuff has been ghostwritten for the last 26 years.
Unfortunately that's true about more than just job opportunities. Equal opportunity should be expected, but anyone who believes equal outcomes are realistic (or worse, desirable) has a broken logic center.
You can also turn off the behavior. It's to make a fully-featured web browser functional on substandard hardware and substandard data networks. If your hardware only runs Mini but is on a fast connection, simply turn off remote rendering.
It must make large calculations difficult to only be able to count in units of 12. I wonder how many dozens equal the 22% of the global mobile browser market held by Opera...
This is what I came here to post. My first though upon reading the headline was "Oh please God no!"
I don't want my favorite browser frozen in time as Facebook oozes all over it, defiling as they go. I'd rather stab myself in the eye than take the time to hack Firefox into a Frankenstein's Monster version, Chrome doesn't have the features I use (even as an extension), and IE isn't even playing the same game.
Ah, I can hear the screams of outrage now. This is a masterpiece.
In the US the term "shorts" typically means "short pants." Only rarely is the term used to denote an article of underwear.
The article doesn't directly reference the events which led to his discovery, but from his description the guard came in knowing he was there and having scoured the entire building to find him and yell at him.
He wasn't caught as a result of being stumbled over, he appears to have been caught because security found out through other means that he was squatting in the building. As a result, showing his badge wouldn't have done anything.
Indeed, which is why it is so stupid to say such absolute statements
Addressed and agreed explicitly. However, anecdotes don't mean you lack data, just that you lack it in sufficient form to prove to another person. Personal experiences can be a perfectly valid reason for distrusting a department, or segment thereof. While it doesn't excuse making sweeping generalizations as fact, they can certainly give you a reasonable basis for strong feelings (which many people then communicate poorly).
The A10 stuff is harder to find, but it is still there if you're willing to dig that deep.
Quite true, but that quickly surpasses "basic research on Google," which was what that part of my comment was directed at. It's not a quick study to find more than one or two cases falling outside the categories I outlined. In the digital age, if you're looking for those minority cases it might be more like it's buried on page A10000.
As for corruption claims, no, I tend to stick with the incidents which have actual, tangible proof, or those which have very substantial bodies of circumstantial evidence. I do know there are people who support the position based on little more than a general dislike of the police, but it is not a position without merit in many cases.
I'm sorry you have to live in a town that has such problems.
On the one hand I am too, but on the other it's resulted in the removal of the mayor, the city attorney, an associate city attorney, and the creation of an independent police ombudsman's office (though the Police Guild sued to prevent the office from having any investigatory powers, thus neutering it until they renegotiate their employment contracts). Of course, that's counterbalanced by the response from the City Police as previously-mentioned officer was escorted from court after being convicted of civil rights violations and obstruction of justice for beating a man and then lying about it: a public salute by 30-some-odd uniformed officers. This, of course, happened in plain view of the family of the man this officer killed. It was also after video came to light which resulted in him confessing to lying to investigators, so it's not like they could reasonably claim to believe he was innocent.
Mostly my point in posting was that there's very frequently good reason why people do not have faith in the police. The onus is on police to earn respect, rather than expecting it as a matter of course. It's par for the course to see hyperbole and absolute statements in comments about police corruption, and while that may lessen the impact of the statements it doesn't really lessen the fact that there is often a very valid basis for the perceptions which engender those comments.
Did you even read my comment?
One word: Whoosh.
Also, you fail at Latin. Virus is of neutral gender. If the word virius existed, it would be a gendered noun.
The difference with the exchange wars was that the ILECs outright refused to comply with the law, instead dragging it out in the legislature and courts until a good portion of the CLECs declared bankruptcy. Apple has the cash to be able to weather that sort of abuse long enough to thrash Samsung in court for attempting to do the same thing.
The only workable link in the summary is to a snapshot of Jay's blog post. Nowhere in it is a link to the candidate suggested. The only person suggesting a link is Candice, on her blog (findable through links in the comments here). She goes pretty fell-on psycho in that same blog post, thus necessitating the use of many pounds of salt by neutral readers to accept anything said as factual.
I don't think it's particularly balanced to note he "may have a connection," when there is the word of only one person backing up that particular claim.
Yes, there could be an ulterior motive. However, that does not actually excuse the original infringement. In addition, if there were an ulterior motive, wouldn't it have been more effective to simply ignore her and let her sites remain dark for the duration of the complaint process?
We can't "know" any of those things, but we can make reasonable assumptions based on what is provided and the things that have had many eyes on them and couldn't be faked (she had the images posted on her sites and on Facebook, and has removed them all or had them removed). It just doesn't add up to some nefarious conspiracy.
Alright, they could have been faked. However, Jay is an absolutely evil-genius mastermind sockpuppeteer who has been planning for such contingencies for years in advance if that's the case...
Another hilarious aspect to this truly unhinged story: Her site is riddled with JavaScript designed to prevent the copying of anything. So, while it's alright for her to lift the occasional item for her own use, don't you try using anything from her site!*
*Not that I'd want to; the quality of her writing made my eyes bleed...
Yup. She turned around and claimed his request that GoDaddy reinstate her sites was admission of guilt. All it takes is a couple bad apples. This is why tactics get heavy-handed. People don't like dealing with the occasional crapstorm that comes from dealing with people like this, so they start to use a shotgun the first time, every time.