this one does not provide information about "special" US satelites, but it does too often about others.
Only if these "others" want to tell the US which "special" objects are theirs so that the US can remove the objects from the list. I'm guessing that France et al have as little desire to keep the US in the loop as vice versa.
"As for the political aspects of the affair, well... It is certainly very unelegant from the US space authorities to publicize European spy satellites trajectories"
So, unless the Europeans notify the US of the existence and trajectory of European secret satellites, how can the Americans identify which unclaimed satellites belong to EU nations so as to leave them out of the list? Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of the satellites being secret in the first place (lets not kid ourselves about the US and the EU not spying on each other folks)
publishing the existence and trajectory of a friendly nations "secret satellites" might be inelegant, but it is also unavoidable unless the "secret satellites" aren't secret in the first place.
I don't do "Mod parent up" unsually, but in this case, the parent is the single most important post in this thread. I wish to god I had mod points right now.
"I am on an agile project at the moment and have a stand up each morning saying what I have done since the last stand up and what I am going to do before the next stand up. So is this invading my privacy?
Most people in the transportation industry are self employed, and taxi drivers are no exception. They are their own "boss". If a taxi driver wants to stand up in front of himself and account to himself for his actions while working, surely that's his own business
Albeit a little strange... not to mention a little hard to accomplish. I suppose it would work with the assistance of a video camera. I'm not sure what you think this would accomplish though.
I think that one of the advantages governments which don't have to respond (much) to public opinion have over democracies is their ability to think long term as opposed to the news cycle obsession of western democracies. soldiers, tanks, warships and aircraft all run on vast quantities of cash and if the US economy can be made to collapse, this will indeed stop soldiers, tanks, warships and aircraft when there is no more fuel and munitions.
If a belligerent can accomplish this, they don't need superior equipment and doctrine, they only need to last long enough for their opponents logistical pipelines to dry up. If they have the patience to fight for years while the body count piles up (a considerably simpler proposition for a communist government than for a democratic nation) they can prevail over the long term.
As a method of destroying the will of their opponent to fight, it makes a lot of sense as well. If the damage that a war is doing is experienced even by civilians thousands of miles from the nearest enemy combatant, there is going to be pressure placed upon the government to end it regardless of the terms that might be offered.
IMO, recent history has shown that the most effective means by which to defeat the US military is to convince the US public that the fight is not worth the cost. It only makes sense therefore, for any potential opponent of the US to seek out and develop means by which to convince the US public that military conflict is not in their interest. Causing their electrical supplies to become unreliable, their hospital equipment to fail at critical moments, communications systems to fail and their economy to suffer are all means by which the US public might be convinced to break off the conflict that provoked an enemy to take such measures.
Anyway, venting aside, I suspect the the higher pressures women face with the added burden of kids and family life... which many men are still sadly unwilling to assist with to any meaningful degree... they simply do not have the luxury of martyring themselves for the sake of a slightly less buggy productivity suite. Or maybe the men are married to women who "sacrificed" their career for lower pay, shorter hours and don't have the luxury of doing the same because the family would quickly become insolvent. We shouldn't assume that because women are doing more work in the home and less breadwinning while men are doing less work in the home and more breadwinning, that it is because the men are all lazy bastards who don't love their children.
Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"
I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men. Or, hey, why not violence against people. Or, better yet, they could simply stop walking the authoritarian path of banning everything that moves and poke fun at people who promote violence against [insert group of your choice here] instead. People rarely want to emulate individuals who are widely derided.
Oh, sorry, poking fun requires wit. The folks who want these kind of laws only have half of what is required.
No argument with most of what you have said but the following:
"They maintain an exact distance, usually 5 feet from your bumper and look down."
is just... strange.
5 feet!?! and then they TAKE THEIR EYES OF THE ROAD!?!
This does not strike me as a safe practice. Not remotely safe. Even a quick flick down and back, if it's long enough to determine the speed, it's long enough for the situation on the road to change radically. At the speeds at which this sort of practice is justified for detecting speeders, you should just tell the judge: "I was doing 160 mph and still couldn't keep up". For detecting people doing small increments above the speed limit, I think a risk/return analysis needs to be done (and by return, I'm not referring to ticket income) and the practice abandoned.
I doubt it would do anything to affect light intensification gear but it would most likely significantly degrade the usefulness of infra red equipment.
The explanation for this is simple: The numbers we're being fed here are bullshit. Well over 99% of Americans have access to and frequently use motorized transport, electricity and manufactured goods. The same cannot be said about the Chinese. Effectively, by averaging out emissions over a vast array of people who do not have access to emissions producing goods and services, Chinese industry is inaccurately portrayed as cleaner and greener than Americas. As economic progress reaches more and more Chinese citizens, this will change and a straight average will become more informative. Currently it's nothing more than a handy club with which to bash the US.
I will venture to say (my assumption) that most of the time these things are living things.
The most frequently shot things are paper targets. I'm pretty sure that paper isn't alive (eats? no. excretes? no. reproduces? well, they gotta come from somewhere, right?) and that adding a target to a piece of paper does not confer life.
If the engine is already running, the system will not kick in
from the summary:
The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt
And when an adult has demonstrated that they are irresponsible, the measures to curb their behaviour are entirely reasonable. Simply whacking everyone with extra expense, inconvenience and restriction of freedom is unreasonable and incompatible with an allegedly free society.
Sure, freedom has its downsides. Like having to wait until after someone has done something stupid to seize their priveliges but I prefer them to the downside of living in a police state.
"and those who speed up as you attempt to pass them."
I don't mind those ones so much, it creates a gap behind them you can slide into. It's the ones that slow down the moment you back off that ought to be shot.
IMO the offenses for which tickets are issued track more closely with those offenses which are cheapest or easiest to detect. There are plenty of offenses which are dangerous which receive no attention at all simply because detecting them doesn't generate sufficient revenue to justify doing so. I'm all for enforcing the law, but the refusal of police forces to enforce laws that they cannot enforce while sitting at the side of the road munching a donut and slurping coffee or simply by installing a camera fills me with distaste for the whole worthless lot of them.
Preventing tailgating is a good start. So long as they're not nailing the poor bastard who was maintaining a 2 second gap until some idiot changed lanes and reduced the gap to.5 seconds.
Another would be to nail the idiots who change lanes when there's a motorcycle alongside them. Head checks people! (i.e. turn your head and take a look)
Better yet, shoot the idiot who told my employers insurance company that motorcyclists are safer when wearing a high visibility vest.
A warning was issued to the cyber security community. When it comes to security, ignorance is not bliss. It never occurred to me that I'd see large numbers of people on slashdot advocating the suppression of information. That's all this is, information. Passed onto the appropriate people for their consideration. If this process fills you with fear, you really need to get out more.
You do NOT deal with it by hyping every single fantasy that they can post.
And if the threat actually eventuates and it turns out that you didn't warn anyone, you are the one that gets the blame instead of the terrorist or the silly bastard that failed to implement effective security on their network.
Unless you want to issue a blanket pardon for anyone withholding information on threats to your security from you, you're going to have to live with people highlighting threats, even unlikely ones, that they become aware of so as to cover their own ass.
He violated the terms of his visa.
This is illegal and it is a violation of a promise that he has made to the Japanese government.
If the guy can't obey the law and can't keep his word, the Japanese government needs no other excuse to kick his faithless ass out of their country.
I think the reactions here reflect more on the posters than on the teens - apparently being gay is such a horrible thing to most Slashdotters that accusations of it amount to libel. Sad, really.
Apparently some slashdot posters can't tell the difference between an accusation of being gay and pretending to be your victim while claiming that you are gay. While accusations of being gay might not be harmful, if someone pretends to be you and falsely and maliciously claims to be gay/bi/straight while pretending to be you, this might well be harmful.
Apparently falsely and maliciously putting words into someones mouth is such a horrible thing to some (I wouldn't presume to speak for most) slashdotters that doing so amounts to libel. I can only applaud their perspicacity.
There's nothing wrong with assuming any identity you like. Where you get into legitimate trouble is when you assume property and/or authority and/or rights that are not yours to assume.
And here, the respondents have assumed the right/authority of the victim to represent her own sexuality and lifestyle in public. Putting words into another persons mouth infringes on their rights in a profound manner. There is an exception for parody and satire and presumably this court case will revolve around whether the myspace page constituted parody or satire or whether it was a conscious attempt to damage the reputation of the victim. This is the sort of thing we have civil courts to decide.
This fact neither chills nor limits your right to express your own thoughts: It only limits your right to falsely and maliciously express the thoughts of somebody else.
If you want people to take you seriously when insisting that it is wrong to malign people on the basis of their race, sexuality or other irrelevant factors I suggest you refrain from doing so yourself. If you find yourself offended that I compare your remarks to those of "Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, et al" then perhaps you shouldn't make statements that echo theirs.
You really need to save your passion for cases where freedoms are actually being infringed. Here's a hint: no homosexual has been harmed by this lawsuit. A couple of kids thought that it is funny to misrepresent another persons sexuality by assuming that persons identity and representing their lies as the opinion and lifestyle of their victim. Freedom of speech, public participation, does not entail the right to put words in another persons mouth. If you want to express an opinion, no matter what it is, I will support your right to do so. If you want to misrepresent your words as someone elses, I will only hope that your victim brings the full weight of the law to bear against you. and I will not care who they go to to fund the lawsuit
How is the victims (presumed) use of funds provided by [insert left wing bete noir here] any different from a gay person using funds provided by the ACLU to protect themselves against harrasment by right wing loonies? The ACLU has its own agenda, just as many other political and quasi political organisations have agendas. This case, even assuming you are correct about where the money is coming from is a perfectly legitimate use of civil court to settle a very real grievance. As such, it makes a refreshing change from recent abuses of civil court as nothing more than a means of evading criminal court standards of evidence.
You don't feel that having ones sexuality misrepresented does any harm? Cool. I disagree. This case, if it goes to judgement will determine which of us is correct in the eyes of the law. The ACLU has been using exactly the same sort of tactics to bring about its vision of society as have various anti gun groups. There's no point in getting all dismayed about it when right wing organisations catch a clue and do likewise. What's good for the goose and all that. Don't like how a democratic society works? leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if these "others" want to tell the US which "special" objects are theirs so that the US can remove the objects from the list. I'm guessing that France et al have as little desire to keep the US in the loop as vice versa.
So, unless the Europeans notify the US of the existence and trajectory of European secret satellites, how can the Americans identify which unclaimed satellites belong to EU nations so as to leave them out of the list? Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of the satellites being secret in the first place (lets not kid ourselves about the US and the EU not spying on each other folks)
publishing the existence and trajectory of a friendly nations "secret satellites" might be inelegant, but it is also unavoidable unless the "secret satellites" aren't secret in the first place.
I don't do "Mod parent up" unsually, but in this case, the parent is the single most important post in this thread. I wish to god I had mod points right now.
I think that one of the advantages governments which don't have to respond (much) to public opinion have over democracies is their ability to think long term as opposed to the news cycle obsession of western democracies. soldiers, tanks, warships and aircraft all run on vast quantities of cash and if the US economy can be made to collapse, this will indeed stop soldiers, tanks, warships and aircraft when there is no more fuel and munitions.
If a belligerent can accomplish this, they don't need superior equipment and doctrine, they only need to last long enough for their opponents logistical pipelines to dry up. If they have the patience to fight for years while the body count piles up (a considerably simpler proposition for a communist government than for a democratic nation) they can prevail over the long term.
As a method of destroying the will of their opponent to fight, it makes a lot of sense as well. If the damage that a war is doing is experienced even by civilians thousands of miles from the nearest enemy combatant, there is going to be pressure placed upon the government to end it regardless of the terms that might be offered.
IMO, recent history has shown that the most effective means by which to defeat the US military is to convince the US public that the fight is not worth the cost. It only makes sense therefore, for any potential opponent of the US to seek out and develop means by which to convince the US public that military conflict is not in their interest. Causing their electrical supplies to become unreliable, their hospital equipment to fail at critical moments, communications systems to fail and their economy to suffer are all means by which the US public might be convinced to break off the conflict that provoked an enemy to take such measures.
How is it libertarian for government to charge pay as you go taxes on services that are not provided by the government?
Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"
I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men. Or, hey, why not violence against people. Or, better yet, they could simply stop walking the authoritarian path of banning everything that moves and poke fun at people who promote violence against [insert group of your choice here] instead. People rarely want to emulate individuals who are widely derided.
Oh, sorry, poking fun requires wit. The folks who want these kind of laws only have half of what is required.
Try sneaking into their locker room and you'll soon learn different ;)
I doubt it would do anything to affect light intensification gear but it would most likely significantly degrade the usefulness of infra red equipment.
The explanation for this is simple: The numbers we're being fed here are bullshit. Well over 99% of Americans have access to and frequently use motorized transport, electricity and manufactured goods. The same cannot be said about the Chinese. Effectively, by averaging out emissions over a vast array of people who do not have access to emissions producing goods and services, Chinese industry is inaccurately portrayed as cleaner and greener than Americas. As economic progress reaches more and more Chinese citizens, this will change and a straight average will become more informative. Currently it's nothing more than a handy club with which to bash the US.
The most frequently shot things are paper targets. I'm pretty sure that paper isn't alive (eats? no. excretes? no. reproduces? well, they gotta come from somewhere, right?) and that adding a target to a piece of paper does not confer life.
Because from the fashion industry it's patently obvious that women only like products designed by women.
And when an adult has demonstrated that they are irresponsible, the measures to curb their behaviour are entirely reasonable. Simply whacking everyone with extra expense, inconvenience and restriction of freedom is unreasonable and incompatible with an allegedly free society. Sure, freedom has its downsides. Like having to wait until after someone has done something stupid to seize their priveliges but I prefer them to the downside of living in a police state.
"and those who speed up as you attempt to pass them." I don't mind those ones so much, it creates a gap behind them you can slide into. It's the ones that slow down the moment you back off that ought to be shot.
IMO the offenses for which tickets are issued track more closely with those offenses which are cheapest or easiest to detect. There are plenty of offenses which are dangerous which receive no attention at all simply because detecting them doesn't generate sufficient revenue to justify doing so. I'm all for enforcing the law, but the refusal of police forces to enforce laws that they cannot enforce while sitting at the side of the road munching a donut and slurping coffee or simply by installing a camera fills me with distaste for the whole worthless lot of them.
.5 seconds.
Preventing tailgating is a good start. So long as they're not nailing the poor bastard who was maintaining a 2 second gap until some idiot changed lanes and reduced the gap to
Another would be to nail the idiots who change lanes when there's a motorcycle alongside them. Head checks people! (i.e. turn your head and take a look)
Better yet, shoot the idiot who told my employers insurance company that motorcyclists are safer when wearing a high visibility vest.
A warning was issued to the cyber security community. When it comes to security, ignorance is not bliss. It never occurred to me that I'd see large numbers of people on slashdot advocating the suppression of information. That's all this is, information. Passed onto the appropriate people for their consideration. If this process fills you with fear, you really need to get out more.
And if the threat actually eventuates and it turns out that you didn't warn anyone, you are the one that gets the blame instead of the terrorist or the silly bastard that failed to implement effective security on their network.
Unless you want to issue a blanket pardon for anyone withholding information on threats to your security from you, you're going to have to live with people highlighting threats, even unlikely ones, that they become aware of so as to cover their own ass.
He violated the terms of his visa. This is illegal and it is a violation of a promise that he has made to the Japanese government. If the guy can't obey the law and can't keep his word, the Japanese government needs no other excuse to kick his faithless ass out of their country.
Apparently falsely and maliciously putting words into someones mouth is such a horrible thing to some (I wouldn't presume to speak for most) slashdotters that doing so amounts to libel. I can only applaud their perspicacity.
This fact neither chills nor limits your right to express your own thoughts: It only limits your right to falsely and maliciously express the thoughts of somebody else.
You really need to save your passion for cases where freedoms are actually being infringed. Here's a hint: no homosexual has been harmed by this lawsuit. A couple of kids thought that it is funny to misrepresent another persons sexuality by assuming that persons identity and representing their lies as the opinion and lifestyle of their victim. Freedom of speech, public participation, does not entail the right to put words in another persons mouth. If you want to express an opinion, no matter what it is, I will support your right to do so. If you want to misrepresent your words as someone elses, I will only hope that your victim brings the full weight of the law to bear against you. and I will not care who they go to to fund the lawsuit
How is the victims (presumed) use of funds provided by [insert left wing bete noir here] any different from a gay person using funds provided by the ACLU to protect themselves against harrasment by right wing loonies? The ACLU has its own agenda, just as many other political and quasi political organisations have agendas. This case, even assuming you are correct about where the money is coming from is a perfectly legitimate use of civil court to settle a very real grievance. As such, it makes a refreshing change from recent abuses of civil court as nothing more than a means of evading criminal court standards of evidence. You don't feel that having ones sexuality misrepresented does any harm? Cool. I disagree. This case, if it goes to judgement will determine which of us is correct in the eyes of the law. The ACLU has been using exactly the same sort of tactics to bring about its vision of society as have various anti gun groups. There's no point in getting all dismayed about it when right wing organisations catch a clue and do likewise. What's good for the goose and all that. Don't like how a democratic society works? leave.