Haha, wow! I love the extent to which you've owned the slave identity that consumer culture has thrust upon you. You're the sort that hears about Heaven and decides that he'd rather go to Hell, because there are no jobs in paradise and in Hell you get to climb a mountain of swords on your belly. I can imagine you talking to the demon who's sawing off your legs for the third time this morning: "Sure, climbing the mountain of swords doesn't pay as well as being an executive and the ocean of boiling blood is too hot, but it's honest work!"
"fair and impartial" is what a democratic country hopes for, not accurate and efficient.
To the extent that law enforcement is more inaccurate, it is more arbitrary and therefore biased by the prejudices of the officers involved. Basing enforcement on the best information available using predetermined, objective criteria removes potential sources of bias and unfairness.
I agree that there are important privacy issues involved. It makes sense to limit the use of information gathering techniques that are too invasive. Do you feel that this technology would simply be too harmful to use under most circumstances?
It seems like metal objects would be flying through the air and sticking to the floor.
Strangely, the Earth itself produces a field sufficient to cause this very effect at sufficiently low altitudes. It's not even restricted to metal objects!
It's interesting how everyone in this thread seems to assume that this technology will cause an increase in law enforcement activity. However, for agencies operating under fixed budgets, more money spent on expensive surveillance technologies means that less money will be available for payroll. That is, actual enforcement activity will actually decline as a result of adoption.
If this detection technique improves upon existing methods for detecting criminal activity, it will result in more resources being spent accurately and accordingly less resources wasted on legal activity.
The belief that DHS and other TLAs operate in maximally stupid ways is common enough, so why shouldn't we applaud an attempt at improvement? If the technology is broken, let's hope that it's rejected, but a working detection method that increases the accuracy and efficiency of law enforcement will result in increased protection of citizens' rights.
You need to put a little more faith in the great man theory of history. Hitler may not have been the best strategist, but his charisma and ruthlessness effected the state of Germany before the war.
I appreciate your cynicism, but assuming that health insurance companies are properly regulated, they have incentive to make patients healthier whenever preventative care is less expensive than treatment. Perhaps this is the one good thing about ridiculously high costs for medical treatment—there's profit to be made in preventing illnesses in advance.
We can blame the morals of executives who would figuratively throw policy holders under the bus for increased profits, but so long as they are using legal means, the blame rests equally on those who permit such behavior by not outlawing it.
Great! So how do you define ownership in such a way that the definition applies to stored data, verbally transmitted data, concepts, names and the like?
Read carefully. If it's stationary, you can't take it home. If you can take it home, it's not stationary. Stationery, on the other hand, is a completely different matter.
Remarkably, this is still a nonsensical statement. "Sans issue" or "without issue" is commonly seen in the phrase "died without issue" in which it refers to dying without siring or bearing children. Used as an uncountable noun, issue refers to one's offspring. As a countable noun, issue may refer to technical problems. The error here is with "issue" not "sans."
"Users can still log in without issues." means that users can log in without any problems. "Users can still log in without issue." or "Users can still log in sans issue." means that users are still not required to have children before they can log in.
Not every obviously stupid statement is a funny statement. Neither is every post that contains the phrase "series of tubes" hilarious. It only makes sense to imply that I missed the joke if there was a joke to miss.
I contend there was nothing humorous. Can you point out anything in the original post that was funny?
The post doesn't contain any puns, explicit mockery, surprise or elements with multiple interpretations, which are some basic aspects of humor. It might be argued that the post is so stupid that it is absurd, but there is no sophistication or incongruity in the proposal. Its author does nothing to invalidate the naive hypothesis that he is either ignorant or unintelligent.
P.S. Congratulations on proving the existence of an unfunny post containing "a tremendous WHOOOOSH."
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, wow! I love the extent to which you've owned the slave identity that consumer culture has thrust upon you. You're the sort that hears about Heaven and decides that he'd rather go to Hell, because there are no jobs in paradise and in Hell you get to climb a mountain of swords on your belly. I can imagine you talking to the demon who's sawing off your legs for the third time this morning: "Sure, climbing the mountain of swords doesn't pay as well as being an executive and the ocean of boiling blood is too hot, but it's honest work!"
The Three Stooges version of 1984 already exists IIRC.
"fair and impartial" is what a democratic country hopes for, not accurate and efficient.
To the extent that law enforcement is more inaccurate, it is more arbitrary and therefore biased by the prejudices of the officers involved. Basing enforcement on the best information available using predetermined, objective criteria removes potential sources of bias and unfairness.
I agree that there are important privacy issues involved. It makes sense to limit the use of information gathering techniques that are too invasive. Do you feel that this technology would simply be too harmful to use under most circumstances?
It seems like metal objects would be flying through the air and sticking to the floor.
Strangely, the Earth itself produces a field sufficient to cause this very effect at sufficiently low altitudes. It's not even restricted to metal objects!
It's interesting how everyone in this thread seems to assume that this technology will cause an increase in law enforcement activity. However, for agencies operating under fixed budgets, more money spent on expensive surveillance technologies means that less money will be available for payroll. That is, actual enforcement activity will actually decline as a result of adoption.
If this detection technique improves upon existing methods for detecting criminal activity, it will result in more resources being spent accurately and accordingly less resources wasted on legal activity.
The belief that DHS and other TLAs operate in maximally stupid ways is common enough, so why shouldn't we applaud an attempt at improvement? If the technology is broken, let's hope that it's rejected, but a working detection method that increases the accuracy and efficiency of law enforcement will result in increased protection of citizens' rights.
You need to put a little more faith in the great man theory of history. Hitler may not have been the best strategist, but his charisma and ruthlessness effected the state of Germany before the war.
The real question is: Does it have Battletoads?
We're all really going to miss you, AdmBurrito.
guaranteed to do what well you know what moon dust is supposed to do
So it's guaranteed to get me arrested by a local sheriff working in cooperation with NASA employees?
Oh yeah! Haskell will be cool forever!
Suck it, chumps!
Wait...
Are you a modern Major General?!?!?!
..because every real world entity and url has a unique, diametrically opposed dual that we can vote for?
Quick, name the opposites for amoeba, square, triangle, pink, Harley-Davidson, cnn.com and conservation of angular momentum.
Yeah, I think they bought dog curtains.
I appreciate your cynicism, but assuming that health insurance companies are properly regulated, they have incentive to make patients healthier whenever preventative care is less expensive than treatment. Perhaps this is the one good thing about ridiculously high costs for medical treatment—there's profit to be made in preventing illnesses in advance.
We can blame the morals of executives who would figuratively throw policy holders under the bus for increased profits, but so long as they are using legal means, the blame rests equally on those who permit such behavior by not outlawing it.
It's preferable to being smart then lucky, which implies that one has stopped being smart.
You can make a slightly stronger statement. Proofs and programs aren't just similar.
Proofs are programs and programs are proofs.
Great! So how do you define ownership in such a way that the definition applies to stored data, verbally transmitted data, concepts, names and the like?
Italics have always worked for me.
Perhaps you're doing it wrong.
enjoy your latency, bro
You're arguing against childhood vaccinations and you'd like to see evidence of retardation?
I can help you. First, find a mirror...
If you think lack of Unicode support is annoying on Slashdot, you should see Slashdot.jp. Every single post is blank :-(
Read carefully. If it's stationary, you can't take it home. If you can take it home, it's not stationary. Stationery, on the other hand, is a completely different matter.
The real problem with proving that the truth can change is that you have to keep proving it over and over again.
"Users can still log in without issue."
Remarkably, this is still a nonsensical statement. "Sans issue" or "without issue" is commonly seen in the phrase "died without issue" in which it refers to dying without siring or bearing children. Used as an uncountable noun, issue refers to one's offspring. As a countable noun, issue may refer to technical problems. The error here is with "issue" not "sans."
"Users can still log in without issues." means that users can log in without any problems.
"Users can still log in without issue." or "Users can still log in sans issue." means that users are still not required to have children before they can log in.
Not every obviously stupid statement is a funny statement. Neither is every post that contains the phrase "series of tubes" hilarious. It only makes sense to imply that I missed the joke if there was a joke to miss.
I contend there was nothing humorous. Can you point out anything in the original post that was funny?
The post doesn't contain any puns, explicit mockery, surprise or elements with multiple interpretations, which are some basic aspects of humor. It might be argued that the post is so stupid that it is absurd, but there is no sophistication or incongruity in the proposal. Its author does nothing to invalidate the naive hypothesis that he is either ignorant or unintelligent.
P.S. Congratulations on proving the existence of an unfunny post containing "a tremendous WHOOOOSH."