We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.
Could be worse. These "best and brightest" could have been elected and run amok. Oh, wait, that was 2008.;)
No seriously though, one man's "bring the government to its knees" is another's "bring spending back in line with sane levels more similar to (population-adjusted) 2007 levels instead of keeping it at 50% above that forever with all the implications that will have on our debt and/or tax levels and economic growth". I suppose it must be nice to be able dismiss all your political opponents with caricatures of their views, though I'm idly wondering whether making that decision instead of going for intellectual honesty is itself consistent with the brain scan differences reported in this article:)
In the US we have a pretty good history of not hanging outgoing politicians for controversial political decisions they made while in office. This is one of the reasons that our politicians are so very willing to leave office. You will notice that there are various regimes in the world where outgoing leadership turns into political prisoners or are executed... you may also notice that the leadership in those parts tends to do rather oppressive things to cling to power: e.g. when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.
Western democracies have prosecuted a variety of people for war crimes, but it doesn't take a flaming Republican to notice that there were a variety of very important qualitative differences between the likes of Adolf Hitler's gang and GWBush's...
I contend that your proposed alternative is significantly uglier than the current situation.
You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective itâ(TM)s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting. You canâ(TM)t rely on revenue due to speculation, you canâ(TM)t build a company off of what will âoeprobablyâ happen. Watch âoeThe Smartest Guys in the Roomâ and see how that worked out for Enron.
Okay, so Enron fudged it, but insurance companies in general are all about building a business speculating on what will "probably" happen. The things that let them keep going are in-depth risk analysis, diversification, and a fat cushion of capital. As long as they're right sufficiently more often than they're wrong, then they win overall.
Not that this will help EA out any, but that bit bugged me.
It's true. Some decade the programmer will possibly even do something about it. But right now, it's all about actually integrating your dwarven armies and your civilization's trade caravans into the world at large, or something like that.
The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty. Reverse that and it would be a tractably horrible idea, but it would be significantly less interesting to the people who are running it.
These amendments are based on the leftist cry that "corporations aren't people," but the Supreme Court has never said that they are. "Corporate personhood" is a legal fiction that allows natural people to sue and to be sued, to own and transfer property, and to carry on their affairs as a group. Corporations have rights because the people who own them have rights.
As Chief Justice John Marshall explained nearly 200 years ago in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, corporations allow "a perpetual succession of many persons . . . to manage [their] affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand." The legal concept of a corporate "person" has been with the United States since its founding, recognized in literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions.
If Move to Amend got its way, police could search businesses, unions, clubs and nonprofits at will, without a warrant. The state could seize business property without due process or just compensation, leaving pension funds and individual shareholders holding worthless stock. Partnerships and corporations would have no legal rights in court. Incorporated churches would have no right of worship.
The absurdity should be obvious. Yet city councils around the country, including New York and Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for such an amendment.
"The fact that politicians are allowed to lie in an election is just insane."
The alternative is that a government, consisting of or substantially under the control of politicians, is tasked with policing an election, determining what is the truth and what is a lie, and sanctioning those who are deemed liars. Clearly there's no way there could possibly be a massive conflict of interest here.
In fact, government policing of "elections" to weed out "lies" spread by competing political parties has worked for decades in a variety of utterly corrupt totalitarian dictatorships.
That's a little tendentious. The police and military are ostensibly designed to protect the general population. I mean, I'll respect your concerns about police oppressing people instead of protecting them, but if you go so far as to call them "bad guys" per se I'm not convinced that you're not just bringing a pre-existing political prejudice to the table...
Yes. Theft is taking an object with an intent to deprive its original owner of its use. In England they call it "taking without consent". I believe in the US the applicable laws may vary from state to state.
Art. Anyone can do unstructured abstract doodles, and put them down at a moment's notice. Also great for managing distraction in meetings (even productive meetings). It interferes minimally with your ability to pay attention to what people are saying.
No, that's a little bit off, and it makes a difference: Corporations have many of the rights of citizens. They have them because they're generally owned by citizens, and they're a great way for citizens to exercise their rights, especially things like, oh, "free speech" and "government may not seize your property on a whim".
(You'll also note some rights have special circumstances or restrictions on their use, e.g. the right to vote: you only get to do that once per election, and can't transfer that right. So your corporations don't get to vote. Or count as occupants in carpools, for that matter.)
But the atomic batches in v1.2 prevent such inconsistencies, by ensuring that groups of updates are treated as indivisible (atomic) units of work: either all the updates succeed or all of them fail. If they all fail, then the batch is reapplied, and there’s no need to determine which individual updates failed or succeeded.
Looks like there's two parts here. One of them is communicating the changeset to (one or more) nodes, then the other part is actually applying it. If the coordinator failed halfway through, things can still be automatically resumed. There's a whole bunch of interesting semantics around Cassandra's eventual-consistency model (and the implications on how you should be programming to match it, e.g. lots of idempotent inserts and not a lot of updates) which I'm not entirely qualified to expound upon here:D
Not true, though really, the term is "terroristic threats", as in, threatening someone in order to terrify them. The Texas Penal Code (it was convenient in Google) uses the phrasing: "TERRORISTIC THREAT. A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to... place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." I suspect the media has mangled this one, not the police, because ZOMG terrorism et cetera.
I'm pretty sure most wholly-secular historians agree that Mohammed was real, and there's a general consensus that Jesus was real as well, and even the Buddha. It's the whole "divinity" question and validity of the theology associated with it that's the eminently doubtable part...
I don't know that most people are actually concerned about VA hospitals, but you could easily justify it to a court as part of the whole "maintaining an army" thing, which is definitely something the Constitution provides for.
Slashdot Mirror
Could be worse. These "best and brightest" could have been elected and run amok. Oh, wait, that was 2008. ;)
No seriously though, one man's "bring the government to its knees" is another's "bring spending back in line with sane levels more similar to (population-adjusted) 2007 levels instead of keeping it at 50% above that forever with all the implications that will have on our debt and/or tax levels and economic growth". I suppose it must be nice to be able dismiss all your political opponents with caricatures of their views, though I'm idly wondering whether making that decision instead of going for intellectual honesty is itself consistent with the brain scan differences reported in this article :)
In the US we have a pretty good history of not hanging outgoing politicians for controversial political decisions they made while in office. This is one of the reasons that our politicians are so very willing to leave office. You will notice that there are various regimes in the world where outgoing leadership turns into political prisoners or are executed... you may also notice that the leadership in those parts tends to do rather oppressive things to cling to power: e.g. when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.
Western democracies have prosecuted a variety of people for war crimes, but it doesn't take a flaming Republican to notice that there were a variety of very important qualitative differences between the likes of Adolf Hitler's gang and GWBush's...
I contend that your proposed alternative is significantly uglier than the current situation.
"One of these days an innocent person is going to end up dead"? Clearly, sir, you have paid no attention to Libertarian media in the past decade or two. Go hop over to reason.com, ignore their tax policy proposals for a moment if they annoy you, and just do a search for all the fun articles about how a SWAT team prevented paramedics from going to work for hour and fourteen minutes after shooting a veteran as part of a drug raid on the neighbors.
Driving can be fun, sometimes, but never when it's commuting (and guess where I do most of my driving?)
Okay, so Enron fudged it, but insurance companies in general are all about building a business speculating on what will "probably" happen. The things that let them keep going are in-depth risk analysis, diversification, and a fat cushion of capital. As long as they're right sufficiently more often than they're wrong, then they win overall.
Not that this will help EA out any, but that bit bugged me.
It's true. Some decade the programmer will possibly even do something about it. But right now, it's all about actually integrating your dwarven armies and your civilization's trade caravans into the world at large, or something like that.
The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty. Reverse that and it would be a tractably horrible idea, but it would be significantly less interesting to the people who are running it.
The rights you say will be missing are afforded to the people in the corporation, not the corporate entity.
Congratulations. You have just accurately described the theory behind the current regime with the legal fiction.
-- Bradley A Smith.
"The fact that politicians are allowed to lie in an election is just insane."
The alternative is that a government, consisting of or substantially under the control of politicians, is tasked with policing an election, determining what is the truth and what is a lie, and sanctioning those who are deemed liars. Clearly there's no way there could possibly be a massive conflict of interest here.
In fact, government policing of "elections" to weed out "lies" spread by competing political parties has worked for decades in a variety of utterly corrupt totalitarian dictatorships.
That's a little tendentious. The police and military are ostensibly designed to protect the general population. I mean, I'll respect your concerns about police oppressing people instead of protecting them, but if you go so far as to call them "bad guys" per se I'm not convinced that you're not just bringing a pre-existing political prejudice to the table...
Yes. Theft is taking an object with an intent to deprive its original owner of its use. In England they call it "taking without consent". I believe in the US the applicable laws may vary from state to state.
Art. Anyone can do unstructured abstract doodles, and put them down at a moment's notice. Also great for managing distraction in meetings (even productive meetings). It interferes minimally with your ability to pay attention to what people are saying.
Since you ask, 5G is 49 meters per second per second. It's a whole 9.8m/s^2 better than 4G!
(I'm sure being in India does constrain his ability to compete with my technology skills somewhat, but not enough that I can stop worrying about him.)
He lives in Washington, DC, but he represents the state of Massachusetts. Also, he hates the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
My proximate annoyance was the Instagram/Twitter war. Much less convenient to post things there now.
(You'll also note some rights have special circumstances or restrictions on their use, e.g. the right to vote: you only get to do that once per election, and can't transfer that right. So your corporations don't get to vote. Or count as occupants in carpools, for that matter.)
Looks like there's two parts here. One of them is communicating the changeset to (one or more) nodes, then the other part is actually applying it. If the coordinator failed halfway through, things can still be automatically resumed. There's a whole bunch of interesting semantics around Cassandra's eventual-consistency model (and the implications on how you should be programming to match it, e.g. lots of idempotent inserts and not a lot of updates) which I'm not entirely qualified to expound upon here :D
500ml bottles are common in the industry and correspond to a 16.9oz beverage. My conclusion is: this policy is a secret attack on the metric system.
Not true, though really, the term is "terroristic threats", as in, threatening someone in order to terrify them. The Texas Penal Code (it was convenient in Google) uses the phrasing: "TERRORISTIC THREAT. A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to ... place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." I suspect the media has mangled this one, not the police, because ZOMG terrorism et cetera.
That said, the arrest is still bonkers.
I'm pretty sure most wholly-secular historians agree that Mohammed was real, and there's a general consensus that Jesus was real as well, and even the Buddha. It's the whole "divinity" question and validity of the theology associated with it that's the eminently doubtable part...
Imagine if the North Sea was actually landmass... and if you have trouble imagining, use this map.
I don't know that most people are actually concerned about VA hospitals, but you could easily justify it to a court as part of the whole "maintaining an army" thing, which is definitely something the Constitution provides for.