Castro, arguably, had a pretty humane solution some years ago, if memory serves (_60 Minutes_ report, IIRC) -- isolation in a well-stocked, fairly comfortable neighborhood. Comfortable by Cuban standards, at least.
Not to mention that AIDS drugs right now don't save lives, since they don't cure it. Instead, they keep the patients alive longer, during which they can infect others if they so choose. *shrug*
Education with respect to prostitution and the consequences of unprotected promiscuity would be more worthwhile.
Sure. Pearl Harbor was a pretty good demonstration of the power of carrier warfare, as well as surprise against a relatively complacent and definitely inexperienced enemy, even though the politics behind the action involved, er, rather drastic miscalculations. Sell away. *shrug*
No. Unless they have treaties stipulating such, but they probably do not.
What it does mean, 'tho, is that any enforcement of the French law is probably going to be done without the assistance of the US judiciary. If Yahoo! has operations over there, well, they could be penalized -- but don't expect the US police to seize US-located assets of Yahoo! and send them to the French. And remember that a ruling is meaningless unless it has a real effect -- in this case, there may not be unless Yahoo! either has assets in France (or any countries that cooperate with it) or was planning to do so.
Same way, incidentally, that Skylarov wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't bothered showing up here, because the Russians had no interest in enforcing our laws on him, but he did.
Fixing over a million lines of other people's code, developed over a period of years by many different people, and possibly with a great deal of interdependencies -- not to mention that applications may depend on particular quirks as well? I'd think that would take a vast amount of time and effort, if it's at all possible.
*shrug*
I suppose Sun could fund a code audit, with a bug-tracking database that has a daemon auto-posting to NTBugtraq, 'tho.;)
They said the same thing about SMAC, too (Librarian level). But they were lying -- the AI definitely cheated information-wise, if you paid close attention to the diplomacy (e.g. the amount of tribute it asked for, et al).
If they tell us outright, that's a commitment on their part, and they risk those demands actually being met. Then their excuse for existing goes away.
Re:It's our arrogance is why others hate us.
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Not just steel for cheap -- steel for below manufacturing cost. That's called dumping, and is forbidden under the usual trading laws because it's basically done to damage competitors, followed by raising prices once they're dead.
Go talk to Gephardt and his union friends about free trade.
Re:You miss the point
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
According to my 2000 NYT Almanac, a full 40% of the Saudi labor force is on government payroll. That's more than on oil, even (25% industry, construction and oil combined). 40%?!
Hint: they've got a reputation for corruption, and it's not completely unearned.
Re:The other problem of globalization.
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Nobody? It seems to me that keeping people poor and angry has its political advantages. For instance, would it be to Saudi Arabia's advantage to fund Palestinian infrastructure and growth, and thus take away a very useful issue (the endless struggle... of somebody else... which they're not helping that much... against Israel?) from their own domestic politics? As long as the status quo continues, they've got a country against which they can redirect their media.
Re:Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
He was an extremist, not a fundamentalist. His objections to the Federal Government were simply that, whereas fundamentalists tend to view EVERYTHING through a basic prism. For instance, the Saudi-funded madrassas cheerfully teach students that their teacher and the Koran know everything, and that there is therefore no need to learn about the outside world from other sources, or to approach an issue from any other angle.
Re:Bad side of globalization
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
That statistic doesn't say that they're innocent victims. I don't call throwing rocks or firebombs, or shooting at buses, innocent activities.
Hell, that number even includes work accidents (the Israeli euphemism for when an activist (the media euphemism for terrorist) gets his viscera scattered over a wide area when building his own bomb), no?.
Er, no. Simple counterexample: Chiang Kai-shek versus Mao Tsedong, during the Japanese invasion in WWII. They didn't cooperate before, didn't really cooperate then, and didn't cooperate afterwards -- it was in both their interests to wait, conserve their forces while letting the US and British figure out how to drive the Japanese to unconditional surrender, and then resume fighting each other. Forget their differences? Certainly not.
For instance, both morale and supply are in Illwinter's Dominions, which is a nifty province-level turn-based game. It's fairly high-level in that, for instance, you don't issue orders during battle (you give them *before*, via positioning and targetting if you choose. e.g. you can give a commander an Ethereal Crossbow, which does 999 hp (i.e. instant death), and tell him to target enemy spellcasters, but you must do so before battle. You can tell troops to hold for a turn, then attack the closest enemies, or so forth.)
Morale: Every unit and commander has a morale number based upon its type (well, except for unbreakable troops, such as mindless undead; they get a symbolic value). Modifiers include whether or not they're in their home province, some magical effects, and so forth. If a morale check fails in battle, a unit (IIRC) or entire squad may rout.
Supply lines: You don't have to move supplies around explicitly. It does, however, calculate how much supply you have available in a province based upon its population, nearby castles (that you can reach -- e.g. not if you're surrounded by hostile territory), et al. Starving an enemy army to death is a viable strategy unless that enemy army doesn't need to eat. Basically, you have to use common sense and not overextend yourself unless you've got an army that doesn't eat, or you brought along enough magical toys that provide food.
I don't see an inherent contradiction between IP protection and free enterprise.
The latter, after all, is based on a) ownership, and b) deals (contracts). With IP protection, an owner has the ability to offer contracts regarding it; without, there's no point in it because anybody else can use his IP without his consent.
The terrain granularity never bothered me too much in Civ/SMAC games. The fact that, say, you could *block* incoming missiles with, oh, Locusts of Chiron in SMAC did; as did the horrible pathfinding (esp. the GOTO command); the complete lack of stacks; and other nonsense such as being able to launch cruise missiles into a submarine while it's at sea. Plus, of course, the blatant cheating w/ the AI having at least some FOW removed, like knowing how much money and technology you had at all times, and its remarkable knack for finding cloaked units...
Well, some have non-trivial amounts of money, which might be helpful for persuading the unethical technicals. And others have had training in western universities, so you can't discount the possibility of technical gurus in their movements.
'sides, look at cults. Some cults have gotten pretty highly-trained recruits before.
1. The article specifically mentions that one problem with putting these cases through the general court system is that the technical details are important, but often not terribly understood. A specialized court could be composed of jurists who have technical knowledge, which IMHO is something that would be welcomed instead of blasted.
2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?
There's more than two POVs, you know -- it sounds like you're trying to impose a false dichotomy. It's not a war against the world, after all; the US is still planning to let most of the rest of the world continue their usual routine, with the major exception being those that explicitly prioritize killing Americans as good.
Oh, and standing on a street corner with a sign isn't terribly impressive. Writing solidly researched, rational, act-filled arguments is. Likewise, lighting candles, marching and chanting -- even if the chants rhyme, and so forth aren't terribly convincing, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Castro, arguably, had a pretty humane solution some years ago, if memory serves (_60 Minutes_ report, IIRC) -- isolation in a well-stocked, fairly comfortable neighborhood. Comfortable by Cuban standards, at least.
Not to mention that AIDS drugs right now don't save lives, since they don't cure it. Instead, they keep the patients alive longer, during which they can infect others if they so choose. *shrug*
Education with respect to prostitution and the consequences of unprotected promiscuity would be more worthwhile.
Sure. Pearl Harbor was a pretty good demonstration of the power of carrier warfare, as well as surprise against a relatively complacent and definitely inexperienced enemy, even though the politics behind the action involved, er, rather drastic miscalculations. Sell away. *shrug*
No. Unless they have treaties stipulating such, but they probably do not.
What it does mean, 'tho, is that any enforcement of the French law is probably going to be done without the assistance of the US judiciary. If Yahoo! has operations over there, well, they could be penalized -- but don't expect the US police to seize US-located assets of Yahoo! and send them to the French. And remember that a ruling is meaningless unless it has a real effect -- in this case, there may not be unless Yahoo! either has assets in France (or any countries that cooperate with it) or was planning to do so.
Same way, incidentally, that Skylarov wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't bothered showing up here, because the Russians had no interest in enforcing our laws on him, but he did.
"Public performance". 'nuff said.
Fixing over a million lines of other people's code, developed over a period of years by many different people, and possibly with a great deal of interdependencies -- not to mention that applications may depend on particular quirks as well? I'd think that would take a vast amount of time and effort, if it's at all possible.
;)
*shrug*
I suppose Sun could fund a code audit, with a bug-tracking database that has a daemon auto-posting to NTBugtraq, 'tho.
Along the same lines...
#3. Save the video "dramatizations" for commercials, not for evidence...
...writes someone who doesn't even know the correct sex of the judge, let alone the random selection process.
They said the same thing about SMAC, too (Librarian level). But they were lying -- the AI definitely cheated information-wise, if you paid close attention to the diplomacy (e.g. the amount of tribute it asked for, et al).
If they tell us outright, that's a commitment on their part, and they risk those demands actually being met. Then their excuse for existing goes away.
Not just steel for cheap -- steel for below manufacturing cost. That's called dumping, and is forbidden under the usual trading laws because it's basically done to damage competitors, followed by raising prices once they're dead.
Go talk to Gephardt and his union friends about free trade.
According to my 2000 NYT Almanac, a full 40% of the Saudi labor force is on government payroll. That's more than on oil, even (25% industry, construction and oil combined). 40%?!
Hint: they've got a reputation for corruption, and it's not completely unearned.
Nobody? It seems to me that keeping people poor and angry has its political advantages. For instance, would it be to Saudi Arabia's advantage to fund Palestinian infrastructure and growth, and thus take away a very useful issue (the endless struggle... of somebody else... which they're not helping that much... against Israel?) from their own domestic politics? As long as the status quo continues, they've got a country against which they can redirect their media.
He was an extremist, not a fundamentalist. His objections to the Federal Government were simply that, whereas fundamentalists tend to view EVERYTHING through a basic prism. For instance, the Saudi-funded madrassas cheerfully teach students that their teacher and the Koran know everything, and that there is therefore no need to learn about the outside world from other sources, or to approach an issue from any other angle.
That statistic doesn't say that they're innocent victims. I don't call throwing rocks or firebombs, or shooting at buses, innocent activities.
Hell, that number even includes work accidents (the Israeli euphemism for when an activist (the media euphemism for terrorist) gets his viscera scattered over a wide area when building his own bomb), no?.
Er, no. Simple counterexample: Chiang Kai-shek versus Mao Tsedong, during the Japanese invasion in WWII. They didn't cooperate before, didn't really cooperate then, and didn't cooperate afterwards -- it was in both their interests to wait, conserve their forces while letting the US and British figure out how to drive the Japanese to unconditional surrender, and then resume fighting each other. Forget their differences? Certainly not.
Which, due to a coincidence of religious calendars that year, is also known as the Ramadan war.
Play a high-level turn-based game.
For instance, both morale and supply are in Illwinter's Dominions, which is a nifty province-level turn-based game. It's fairly high-level in that, for instance, you don't issue orders during battle (you give them *before*, via positioning and targetting if you choose. e.g. you can give a commander an Ethereal Crossbow, which does 999 hp (i.e. instant death), and tell him to target enemy spellcasters, but you must do so before battle. You can tell troops to hold for a turn, then attack the closest enemies, or so forth.)
Morale: Every unit and commander has a morale number based upon its type (well, except for unbreakable troops, such as mindless undead; they get a symbolic value). Modifiers include whether or not they're in their home province, some magical effects, and so forth. If a morale check fails in battle, a unit (IIRC) or entire squad may rout.
Supply lines: You don't have to move supplies around explicitly. It does, however, calculate how much supply you have available in a province based upon its population, nearby castles (that you can reach -- e.g. not if you're surrounded by hostile territory), et al. Starving an enemy army to death is a viable strategy unless that enemy army doesn't need to eat. Basically, you have to use common sense and not overextend yourself unless you've got an army that doesn't eat, or you brought along enough magical toys that provide food.
Er, what about our obesity rate?
I don't see an inherent contradiction between IP protection and free enterprise.
The latter, after all, is based on a) ownership, and b) deals (contracts). With IP protection, an owner has the ability to offer contracts regarding it; without, there's no point in it because anybody else can use his IP without his consent.
How about, er, logic?
The terrain granularity never bothered me too much in Civ/SMAC games. The fact that, say, you could *block* incoming missiles with, oh, Locusts of Chiron in SMAC did; as did the horrible pathfinding (esp. the GOTO command); the complete lack of stacks; and other nonsense such as being able to launch cruise missiles into a submarine while it's at sea. Plus, of course, the blatant cheating w/ the AI having at least some FOW removed, like knowing how much money and technology you had at all times, and its remarkable knack for finding cloaked units...
Well, some have non-trivial amounts of money, which might be helpful for persuading the unethical technicals. And others have had training in western universities, so you can't discount the possibility of technical gurus in their movements.
'sides, look at cults. Some cults have gotten pretty highly-trained recruits before.
1. The article specifically mentions that one problem with putting these cases through the general court system is that the technical details are important, but often not terribly understood. A specialized court could be composed of jurists who have technical knowledge, which IMHO is something that would be welcomed instead of blasted.
2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?
There's more than two POVs, you know -- it sounds like you're trying to impose a false dichotomy. It's not a war against the world, after all; the US is still planning to let most of the rest of the world continue their usual routine, with the major exception being those that explicitly prioritize killing Americans as good.
Oh, and standing on a street corner with a sign isn't terribly impressive. Writing solidly researched, rational, act-filled arguments is. Likewise, lighting candles, marching and chanting -- even if the chants rhyme, and so forth aren't terribly convincing, either.
Like _Dateline NBC_ rigging trucks to ignite their gas tanks during collision tests?
Or _CNN_ claiming that US Army SOG teams used nerve gas on American defectors in Vietnam?
Or networks calling states during the election before their voting closed?
Or (pretty much all) networks' cheerfully misusing statistics in order to inflame viewers who don't know enough to ask the relevant questions?