The system causes welfare. I have a cousin. He has medical troubles. He's on lifelong disability. He tried to get a job once. It worked out that something like $1 income cut his benefits by $10. So it's cheaper to stay on disability than find a job. He spends a large portion of his time begging. Why? Because it's the only way he can think of to get a small increase in income without losing benefits. Also, once on permanent disability, it's impossible to pop on and off it as you try to find work.
If you really lived in that neighborhood, and aren't just lying anonymously on the Internet to make a point, then you have low levels of empathy such that you'd probably test as mentally ill.
I reject that definition. It doesn't matter who's name is on the ownership papers of the factory. Who chooses what is made? If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula, then you are under a hybrid system (capitalist/socialist), like the USA. If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist. If the state tells you "we need more peaches this year, so that's what you'll be canning" then it's socialist.
All systems in existence today are hybrid. The USA is the only place that picks a line in the hybrid continuum and declares it "capitalism" and, of course, they are the most socialistic entry in that definition, and the definition changes daily.
No, he didn't. There are other organizations on the planet that pay dividends. Your friend didn't get a check from the Alaskan Permanent Dividend Fund. Most likely he's a member of one of the native corporations that dispenses dividends. Either his parents set him up and he doesn't understand what it is, or you didn't listen very well.
But BSG was watchable. I kept watching it, essentially re-writing every episode in my head as they aired. The writing was horrible (and I don't mean the dialogue, but the writing). They'd stumble into an unintentional parallel with reality, then ignore it like they didn't mean to. So sloppy it was painful. But like a bad scene in a horrow movie (no writers, don't go in there alone), it was watchable.
Really, an entire series based on the premise of religious cleansing, and no parallels or message about today's wars and religious cleansing? AI takes over with no message about man's tampering with nature? Good sci-fi was always blatant about the message. BSG seemed to try to ignore the message. And not like "The 100" (which has no message, and is angsty-teenage drama in a sci-fi setting), BSG played with the messages,and failed. Miserably and repeatedly. Come on, an episode with voter fraud and nothing to link it to present-day voter fraud issues?
BSG sucked hard. Not for what it was, disposable drama, in space. But for what it could have been. Touching on many present day issues, but never tackling a single one.
There may be a lot of new shows, but there sure aren't a lot of good new shows.
For some reason the formula rewards consistent, but not leading shows, like the CSIs, and all that. But don't reward shows with smaller, loyal fanbase that grows, like the modern westerns that have been tried. Brisco County Junior and Firefly come to mind as two westerns that good better reviews than viewership and didn't get the play/support of any other show on the air at the time, and still have people who liked them and would watch more if they were made (though it is probably too late for Brisco, as the lead is getting too old). Little house on the prarie gets 10 seasons with poor ratings, but other westerns aren't given a chance.
It all seems very insane to those looking in from the outside.
Edgewood lab is the only place in the country certified to remove level 4 hazards from explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4 is your level 4 explosive precaution required, or something your organization uses? And Anthrax was present in BSL-3 facilities (though I don't know the current status). So your comments about BSL-4 are irrelevant to handling anthrax anyway.
I happened to be the first person on an new SAP system for ordering from Avaya. After getting the wrong thing 4 times, the tech essentially broke into his own warehouse to "steal" the correct item. The $80k of work was eventually billed at $30k. And sadly, that's one of the best experiences I've had with SAP.
And nobody bothers to ask how many non-military government labs have anthrax. The FDA labs have weaponized anthrax to play with. And they don't fall under the controls listed here.
So, solicitation for murder should be legal, so long as you haven't actually paid for the murder, as to that point, all you've done is speak to someone. And conspiracy to commit murder should be legal as well, as conspiracy is just speech, right?
We'd have to re-write a whol lot of laws to get to your standard, and I think that many people (perhaps even most) would disagree with making harmful speech legal.
What about slander, harassment and those other kinds of harmful speech currently illegal?
Someone who can't explain what he's saying obviously doesn't understand it himself.
Fraud involves some type of transaction dumbass.
So I was just trying to figure out what that meant. False advertising, like bait and switch, should be protected because advertising a $100 widget for $1 doesn't involve any transactions. Or because it "could" involve a transaction, then it's not protected speech. But then, Newspaper headlines wouldn't be protected speech, as the ones above the fold are specifically chosen to cause a transaction.
Your standard is inconsistent and untenable. I guess that's why you are so angry. You are an idiot, but think you are smart, so you are yelling at the guy holding up the mirror.
Hulu will never be a contender because they are a content owner. Netflix is a service organization. The viewer is the customer. For Hulu, the content owners are the customers, the revenue stream is unrelated to their primary customers. Hulu will never be able to think in a way that will make them relevant.
As for something like parking meters.....presumably they are all wired to a central server on their own private wires? But physical access is root, so they're probably attackable, too.
Yes, it's like a new SCADA. In fact, most of the IoT objects I've actually worked with were explicitly SCADA compatible. Most of the same issues, including security.
How do you hack them? Every IoT I've actually seen deployed is on a private network with no direct access to the Internet at all. The only ones actually selling and using I've seen are selling "private cloud" services and calling them "public cloud" They don't even touch the issue of security. They let the IT of the buying company figure out how to get in on the Internet.
IoT has no definition. Some people put the WiFi infrastructure down as IoT. Others call a hard-wired non-Internet-connected traffic sensor grid IoT.
IoT is a scam, but it's also real. So it's impossible to determine the use, until we shut down the scammers and get the real uses in the forefront.
The city is terrible at things like R&D.
So someone comes in and says "give me $10B and I'll save you $100B." The city says "giving you $10B is too much, how about $5M for a proof of concept?" The guy takes the $10M does just enough to prevent being hunted for fraud for the rest of his life, and lets it all fail. Then blames the city, and moves on to the next.
These scams have been around for years. Whether with musical instruments or monorails. IoT is just the newest version of scamming the ignorant.
Many things so names were not named with names of meaning. Also, the forced naming of the already-named mountain didn't stick because there were still enough natives in the area to use the old name. In most cases, the feds take the state's name for something and run with it. They didn't in this case because Alaska wasn't a state for a while after the naming. Also note, the "inconsequential" names aren't being fought over. Note the Pribilofs are not using their native names, nor does anyone care. They are named for the Russian "explorer" who found the inhabited (and named) islands. There are many more such examples.
Is the real issue that if you let "those people" win, then you have to admit an error? And The Great White Race is never wrong?
Why must you use such force to hold back the natives? Why does it harm you so that the name of a mountain has changed on the federal records to match what the locals have been calling it since before the records were kept?
So nobody was killed? They were holding camps for deportation?
It's a shame the US didn't enter WWI on the side of the Germans. The world would be a very different place. We almost did. but our shared language with the English was the swaying factor. The Immigrant English in the US forced English on everyone as the only language, while the Dutch, Irish,Germans and many others didn't force their language on everyone else.
States rights are good when you want to break federal law. But state rights are shit when the state wants to name something in it.
Reminds me of the Civil War, where the States Rights issue was that the south was rebelling against states rights and wanted a strong federal government. But 150 years later, it's forgotten by the losers, and they assert they were on the other sides of the states rights issue. Always changing their story, because reality is against them.
The name was Denali before the White Man reassigned the name to honor a white man. It'd been unofficially Denali to locals ever since. The feds refused to let the locals name it until 1980, when the federal park was renamed to Denali National Park and Preserve. It'd been officially Denali to locals ever since. Why should the feds disregard the local names for things, and force their own names on local features?
Slashdot Mirror
The system causes welfare. I have a cousin. He has medical troubles. He's on lifelong disability. He tried to get a job once. It worked out that something like $1 income cut his benefits by $10. So it's cheaper to stay on disability than find a job. He spends a large portion of his time begging. Why? Because it's the only way he can think of to get a small increase in income without losing benefits. Also, once on permanent disability, it's impossible to pop on and off it as you try to find work.
If you really lived in that neighborhood, and aren't just lying anonymously on the Internet to make a point, then you have low levels of empathy such that you'd probably test as mentally ill.
Yes. Two people living together live more cheaply than two people living apart. So payment should take reality into account. Why do you hate reality?
I reject that definition. It doesn't matter who's name is on the ownership papers of the factory. Who chooses what is made? If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula, then you are under a hybrid system (capitalist/socialist), like the USA. If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist. If the state tells you "we need more peaches this year, so that's what you'll be canning" then it's socialist.
All systems in existence today are hybrid. The USA is the only place that picks a line in the hybrid continuum and declares it "capitalism" and, of course, they are the most socialistic entry in that definition, and the definition changes daily.
No, he didn't. There are other organizations on the planet that pay dividends. Your friend didn't get a check from the Alaskan Permanent Dividend Fund. Most likely he's a member of one of the native corporations that dispenses dividends. Either his parents set him up and he doesn't understand what it is, or you didn't listen very well.
But BSG was watchable. I kept watching it, essentially re-writing every episode in my head as they aired. The writing was horrible (and I don't mean the dialogue, but the writing). They'd stumble into an unintentional parallel with reality, then ignore it like they didn't mean to. So sloppy it was painful. But like a bad scene in a horrow movie (no writers, don't go in there alone), it was watchable.
Really, an entire series based on the premise of religious cleansing, and no parallels or message about today's wars and religious cleansing? AI takes over with no message about man's tampering with nature? Good sci-fi was always blatant about the message. BSG seemed to try to ignore the message. And not like "The 100" (which has no message, and is angsty-teenage drama in a sci-fi setting), BSG played with the messages,and failed. Miserably and repeatedly. Come on, an episode with voter fraud and nothing to link it to present-day voter fraud issues?
BSG sucked hard. Not for what it was, disposable drama, in space. But for what it could have been. Touching on many present day issues, but never tackling a single one.
No Supernatural on your list? It's fantasy/horror.
There may be a lot of new shows, but there sure aren't a lot of good new shows.
For some reason the formula rewards consistent, but not leading shows, like the CSIs, and all that. But don't reward shows with smaller, loyal fanbase that grows, like the modern westerns that have been tried. Brisco County Junior and Firefly come to mind as two westerns that good better reviews than viewership and didn't get the play/support of any other show on the air at the time, and still have people who liked them and would watch more if they were made (though it is probably too late for Brisco, as the lead is getting too old). Little house on the prarie gets 10 seasons with poor ratings, but other westerns aren't given a chance.
It all seems very insane to those looking in from the outside.
No the bill would have de-funded medical studies and climate studies by targeting the types of studies they do, and making them impossible.
It wasn't about "open data". It was about "Anti-science".
Edgewood lab is the only place in the country certified to remove level 4 hazards from explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4 is your level 4 explosive precaution required, or something your organization uses? And Anthrax was present in BSL-3 facilities (though I don't know the current status). So your comments about BSL-4 are irrelevant to handling anthrax anyway.
I happened to be the first person on an new SAP system for ordering from Avaya. After getting the wrong thing 4 times, the tech essentially broke into his own warehouse to "steal" the correct item. The $80k of work was eventually billed at $30k. And sadly, that's one of the best experiences I've had with SAP.
And nobody bothers to ask how many non-military government labs have anthrax. The FDA labs have weaponized anthrax to play with. And they don't fall under the controls listed here.
So, solicitation for murder should be legal, so long as you haven't actually paid for the murder, as to that point, all you've done is speak to someone. And conspiracy to commit murder should be legal as well, as conspiracy is just speech, right?
We'd have to re-write a whol lot of laws to get to your standard, and I think that many people (perhaps even most) would disagree with making harmful speech legal.
What about slander, harassment and those other kinds of harmful speech currently illegal?
Fraud involves some type of transaction dumbass.
So I was just trying to figure out what that meant. False advertising, like bait and switch, should be protected because advertising a $100 widget for $1 doesn't involve any transactions. Or because it "could" involve a transaction, then it's not protected speech. But then, Newspaper headlines wouldn't be protected speech, as the ones above the fold are specifically chosen to cause a transaction.
Your standard is inconsistent and untenable. I guess that's why you are so angry. You are an idiot, but think you are smart, so you are yelling at the guy holding up the mirror.
So fraud is protected speech, but the transaction that comes from it is not protected. Odd that the laws, as written, disagree with you.
Hulu will never be a contender because they are a content owner. Netflix is a service organization. The viewer is the customer. For Hulu, the content owners are the customers, the revenue stream is unrelated to their primary customers. Hulu will never be able to think in a way that will make them relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A quick glance of the Wikipedia page on it disagrees with you, not that Afghanistan is related to Germany. But nice distraction? Are or are not the applicable clauses in Germany changeable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But the Wiki entry on that doesn't say what you assert either. Try reality. I know it'd be a long trip for you, but the rest of us operate. there.
So your argument is that it's illegal to change the German constitution.
As for something like parking meters.....presumably they are all wired to a central server on their own private wires? But physical access is root, so they're probably attackable, too.
Yes, it's like a new SCADA. In fact, most of the IoT objects I've actually worked with were explicitly SCADA compatible. Most of the same issues, including security.
Peace and democracy aren't worthwhile to the US. They interfere with our ability to manipulate the world.
How do you hack them? Every IoT I've actually seen deployed is on a private network with no direct access to the Internet at all. The only ones actually selling and using I've seen are selling "private cloud" services and calling them "public cloud" They don't even touch the issue of security. They let the IT of the buying company figure out how to get in on the Internet.
IoT is a scam, but it's also real. So it's impossible to determine the use, until we shut down the scammers and get the real uses in the forefront.
The city is terrible at things like R&D.
So someone comes in and says "give me $10B and I'll save you $100B." The city says "giving you $10B is too much, how about $5M for a proof of concept?" The guy takes the $10M does just enough to prevent being hunted for fraud for the rest of his life, and lets it all fail. Then blames the city, and moves on to the next.
These scams have been around for years. Whether with musical instruments or monorails. IoT is just the newest version of scamming the ignorant.
Many things so names were not named with names of meaning. Also, the forced naming of the already-named mountain didn't stick because there were still enough natives in the area to use the old name. In most cases, the feds take the state's name for something and run with it. They didn't in this case because Alaska wasn't a state for a while after the naming. Also note, the "inconsequential" names aren't being fought over. Note the Pribilofs are not using their native names, nor does anyone care. They are named for the Russian "explorer" who found the inhabited (and named) islands. There are many more such examples.
Is the real issue that if you let "those people" win, then you have to admit an error? And The Great White Race is never wrong?
Why must you use such force to hold back the natives? Why does it harm you so that the name of a mountain has changed on the federal records to match what the locals have been calling it since before the records were kept?
The intent of the Nazi was the deport them,
So nobody was killed? They were holding camps for deportation?
It's a shame the US didn't enter WWI on the side of the Germans. The world would be a very different place. We almost did. but our shared language with the English was the swaying factor. The Immigrant English in the US forced English on everyone as the only language, while the Dutch, Irish,Germans and many others didn't force their language on everyone else.
Poltically correct bullshit.
States rights are good when you want to break federal law. But state rights are shit when the state wants to name something in it.
Reminds me of the Civil War, where the States Rights issue was that the south was rebelling against states rights and wanted a strong federal government. But 150 years later, it's forgotten by the losers, and they assert they were on the other sides of the states rights issue. Always changing their story, because reality is against them.
The name was Denali before the White Man reassigned the name to honor a white man. It'd been unofficially Denali to locals ever since. The feds refused to let the locals name it until 1980, when the federal park was renamed to Denali National Park and Preserve. It'd been officially Denali to locals ever since. Why should the feds disregard the local names for things, and force their own names on local features?