Because if you post "I have a bomb" on twitter the police show up at your house. If you post "I want to blow up Best Buy" the police come and arrest you.
The issue isn't qualifying, it's super-qualifying. I have to tie a figure 8 to get belay certified to climb. I can tie the superior Yosemite Bowline (the Figure 8 is a VERY good knot; it does tend to stick if stressed, the Yosemite doesn't and holds just as well if not better--standard Bowline is a death trap).
Dog and handler can successfully pass a test that the dog and handler are neutral in. The handler, looking displeased and suspicious at a kid who isn't some double-blind in a line-up, could signal the dog anyway. He could do so intentionally.
You must not be in the US. You know how college kids pile in the car and drive around to look at girls? In the US, the police occasionally pile in the squad car with IR shit and drive around X-raying houses to see what's going on inside. High IR = marijuana grow operation = warrant = invade the home, arrest everyone, shoot the dog, sex with the 12 year old daughter on the kitchen table, get beer and donuts and celebrate. It doesn't surprise me that cops will just decide to go for a walk around the neighborhood with the police dog; lots of people walk their dogs regularly, the cop has the added entertainment of having the dog point out any houses he can invade later.
Hostile invaders rushing into your house are hard to qualify. A person forcing entry is de-facto hostile invader. Every extra moment you take to make a self-defense decision puts you, personally, at risk; every moment you neglect to utilize to process and analyze the situation increases risk of unnecessary action against a benign intruder. So if you shoot from the hip, you're most likely to protect yourself in the case of a hostile invader; if you wait and try to identify them and make sense, you're most likely to be disabled and then can't defend yourself.
While there's, of course, a balance to be struck, it's very difficult--not reacting immediately puts you in danger FAST, but reacting immediately could easily result in shooting i.e. your wife. This is actually one of the more difficult tactical situations to reflect on strategically.
In any case, one of the worst case scenarios is waiting for a clear signal that the interloper is "threatening you with gross bodily harm or imminent death." By the time it's well confirmed, you're either dead or you've got a gun in your face and you're being stripped of any weapons you may have, so you have to wait for your chance to slip up and disarm the intruder in hand-to-hand combat. This is non-ideal. Thus the scale for a reasonable belief that you're being threatened is pretty low--and honestly, if I kicked your door down and rushed into your house, would you smile and serve me tea? What the FUCK are people doing in MY HOUSE?
It's a good business strategy. Don't make your business a charity; make your business operate on strategies that are actually powerful business motivators, good for the business, but also good for the consumer. Don't just tempt the consumer; keep them from ever leaving. Make sure only wingnuts have much to say about how horrible you are.
The only concerns about Google are quite constant: they're an information trafficking company. They traffic information. Information to design ad campaigns, information to present ads to the consumer. Their base of information grows with each new service--and every time you opt into a new, useful service, you know the cost. The complaint of Google's ever-expanding reach of information gathering is mostly smoke and mirrors: this is what Google DOES, it's the same as when we were just using search. It's bigger, but not more sinister; if it's inexcusable now, it should have been toxic when they were tiny.
Google's best business plan is to make sure their ever-expanding empire is always profitable, but never really threatening. They need to not scare off the consumer. By keeping strict controls on how they provide their services--their real services--they avoid a greater consumer concern. They don't want to be the source of your six hundred phone calls per week from credit card offers; they want to be quiet, unknown, and harmless. They want to have to hide things just for business reasons, to protect from their competitors; they want as little to hide from the small consumers--who could be offended and then leave and diminish the strength of their product--as possible, so that any discovery and release of information is overall non-offensive.
That's the best way to do it. Make sure your business is good for consumers by merit of being based on a strategy that's good for consumers. Make a man cut off his own arm for the chance to shed some of his own blood, rather than the chance to escape your tyranny. Only the insane will cut themselves off from you.
You can argue you lost the potential to make money off of me
No point in making cars or designing cars anymore. Good luck and godspeed, but you can pay the Government (by taxes) to design and build local mass transit systems instead.
No one is saying that they are entitled to have a job, so get off your high horse. They are saying that jobs in America should go to Americans, unless there is not someone qualified for that position.
Actually yes, yes that is exactly what they are saying. Colleges have advertised that a degree gets you a job, people have sued colleges because they didn't get a job in 3 months, and I've had numerous people go off on me about how they paid $$$$$ for a degree in Engineering and they damn well DESERVE a job.
The problem with the jobs going to only Americans and not people we let come into this country or people telecommuting from India is that the world market lets folks make shit cheaper elsewhere. Imagine if TrekBikes packed up its corporate HQ or popped up a subsidiary and imported bikes from TrekBikesCN instead of staying at home, employing American management, and paying American taxes. That's what happens when it's easier to in-source your manufacturing by outsourcing your corporate HQ. That's what happens in some states, in some cities even--the taxes go up, the businesses move to a more favorable state entirely.
The "American Jobs" argument is essentially "you must hire us and not them, for they are cheaper but we are worth more," which comes down to "pay us more than market value for our skills because we deserve $25/hr even though you could hire someone for $15/hr."
Also as for your piracy issue. People made music, and made artwork before there was a demand for those pieces, so that is not a very sound logic. Part of your problem is you assume that those who pirate are willing to pay if they did not take it. Studies have shown that most are not, therefore the artists, and really the studios are losing little to nothing from them.
Did they have the Internet and cheap mass-production in every home during the Baroque era?
Recurring topics on Slashdot are surprisingly consistent. Like, piracy.
People feel they're entitled to jobs, and so the job going to someone else is them STEALING their jobs. Really?
People feel they're entitled to entertainment that they can copy without direct, immediate impact on the produces of said entertainment (i.e. the original producer isn't involved in the copy), and so it's not STEALING to download music and movies and not pay for them. Really?
The reality is somebody else started that business, they make the product, and those damn Mexicans--shitty workers they may be--are actually getting the jobs and doing the work and accepting the lower pay. Stop being so entitled to a $25/hour salary and take $15/hr like a Mexican and you can work, IF the company doesn't feel like hiring non-domestic workers anyway because--face it--it's their company. A US decision to tariff outsourcing and the like would be an ECONOMIC decision, but not a matter of whether or not you or anyone else is entitled to a job; it's a matter of overall health of the local economy and of economic sustainability, and Joe Plumber can pound sand. Any benefit to the American's ability to get a job is a side-effect of an effort to improve the American economy (which would have such implications, yes).
Piracy is the same issue. If nobody paid for music, well... nobody would make music anymore. Before recorded music, musicians made their living on their music, on performance. Now there's so many more musicians, you can't make a living playing banjo sitting on the street corner and a bard's no use carrying tales from one place to another.
Yes but he misses that back then hemp was also not considered for its food uses (the seeds are good food, good for a nutritious oil, a feed stock for animals, etc.) and its biofuel potential (oils from the seeds, possible use breaking down the cellulose from non-useful material--the innards are good, but isn't the outside casing of the stem and such useless?).
Additionally, hemp has historically been less useful to cultivate than cotton because slave labor was more suited to producing cotton. After the civil war, cotton production became more expensive; however cotton cultivation technologies advanced even during the time of slavery, with the invention of the "cotton engine" that removed seeds from cotton. The article states new cultivation methods exist for hemp. Opening the market wouldn't be a bad thing: they have tools to put to use, and any demand also creates demand for improved tools.
Deforestation isn't a good argument. Less land for farming means more land to build houses, after all (however my district rep quite enjoyed the discussion we had about houses in trees... not ready for proposal, some engineering and experimentation needed, as well as planning). Use of land useless for other things, however, is a good argument: a lot of money is going into switchgrass for this purpose. Switchgrass is nice because it can be used to produce ethanol or PLA (plastic).
Hemp stands in as a multi-use, easy-to-cultivate product on marginal land. Like corn, soy, and switchgrass, it won't solve a large portion of the energy needs of this country. Unlike corn and soy, it grows more readily with less energy input (fertilization, conditioning of the land, pesticides, etc). That it supplies a useful fiber makes it attractive to the textile industries--corn/soy farmers like farming corn and soy, but cotton farmers aren't going to switch as readily since they're familiar with growing and grading plant fiber crop. Cotton farmers would more readily grow hemp and harvest it for its fibers--an industry with a use for cotton-hemp blend (30% hemp is excellent) would support this well, and the rest of the plant is useful for other things.
Don't think that anything is a magic bullet. Algae is silly.
I know, we should be examining the real problem of fake tits on women. Sure a slim, curvy girl with big knockers is nice; but we all know a B-cup barbie doesn't need double-Ds.
How about industrial hemp? Grows on shit land; produces fiber that can be blended with cotton for a soft, strong product; leaves behind much cellulose to process into ethanol (or compost) as well as seeds that you can press for oil and process into biodiesel (and feed). You can smoke it, but by the time it gets you high you'll be dead for want of lungs that aren't beef jerky.
What other applications are on PS3 / 360 that you feel you'd miss ?
ItsNotNintendo.app, the premier hard-core application for real, cool gamers who play Call of Duty and all other games almost exactly like Call of Duty but each one more awesome than the last because it has new guns and darker graphics (Doom 3 excluded, because you can't get much darker than that and we want to keep getting darker).
"Diversification" is a ridiculous concept. It's like if you would just diversify your chances of losing are minimized... along with your chances of gaining. The ultimate diversification is to hold an S&P index tracker--hundreds of stocks in the market. But, then you hold exactly one security... wait, what? How is this different from buying them individually?
Diversification is a stupid core strategy. You need a real strategy; diversification is a side-effect. Hedging for example, people leverage various things against each other--short gold and buy oil, you're essentially buying oil in gold, you're assuming oil is going to gain value faster than gold and so you're taking X amount of gold, getting dollars for it, and buying oil with those dollars. You're buying oil in gold. Diverse holdings, because of strategy.
Think about all those people who lose money because they buy into a handful of good stocks and precious metals "for diversification" and then the silver market drops. Contrast that to people who buy in 3 different markets and had held gold until recently while it grew, then broke out when it leveled off (and is arguably going into decline) last year--they also had the mining companies (basic materials) and some other stuff. Why? Because a variety of things are good investments and they've diversified.
Buying an index fund (a sector fund is an index fund) is "diversification" like a consolidated debt object. Some good, some bad. The goal of the stock market is to de-diversify, to specify into only the undervalued so you can sell it when its value rises to correct.
Kyoto eggplant has a deeper, richer flavor than Italian eggplant. The red Japanese carrots (and sweet potatoes!) are really sweet. Black pudding's pretty good, I can get german Bludwurst from an immigrant butcher that makes his own but that's the only source I have. Haven't found genuine or close haggis.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the US, the police occasionally pile in the squad car with IR shit and drive around X-raying houses to see what's going on inside."
They'd better not, because the Supreme Court has pretty solidly ruled that this is unconstitutional.
How do you think that came about, hmm?
Do any of you morons need glasses/brain surgery? "Like" and "Unlike" have opposite meanings and apparently you have them mixed up.
E is mostly masturbation. It was a major desktop option in Mandrake 7.2 but that was it.
No, it's not self-replicating code. This is a cascading failure.
Because if you post "I have a bomb" on twitter the police show up at your house. If you post "I want to blow up Best Buy" the police come and arrest you.
Gonna get a badge and use the IR goggles to spy on your girlfriend naked in the shower...
The issue isn't qualifying, it's super-qualifying. I have to tie a figure 8 to get belay certified to climb. I can tie the superior Yosemite Bowline (the Figure 8 is a VERY good knot; it does tend to stick if stressed, the Yosemite doesn't and holds just as well if not better--standard Bowline is a death trap).
Dog and handler can successfully pass a test that the dog and handler are neutral in. The handler, looking displeased and suspicious at a kid who isn't some double-blind in a line-up, could signal the dog anyway. He could do so intentionally.
You must not be in the US. You know how college kids pile in the car and drive around to look at girls? In the US, the police occasionally pile in the squad car with IR shit and drive around X-raying houses to see what's going on inside. High IR = marijuana grow operation = warrant = invade the home, arrest everyone, shoot the dog, sex with the 12 year old daughter on the kitchen table, get beer and donuts and celebrate. It doesn't surprise me that cops will just decide to go for a walk around the neighborhood with the police dog; lots of people walk their dogs regularly, the cop has the added entertainment of having the dog point out any houses he can invade later.
Yes, like alcohol.
Hostile invaders rushing into your house are hard to qualify. A person forcing entry is de-facto hostile invader. Every extra moment you take to make a self-defense decision puts you, personally, at risk; every moment you neglect to utilize to process and analyze the situation increases risk of unnecessary action against a benign intruder. So if you shoot from the hip, you're most likely to protect yourself in the case of a hostile invader; if you wait and try to identify them and make sense, you're most likely to be disabled and then can't defend yourself.
While there's, of course, a balance to be struck, it's very difficult--not reacting immediately puts you in danger FAST, but reacting immediately could easily result in shooting i.e. your wife. This is actually one of the more difficult tactical situations to reflect on strategically.
In any case, one of the worst case scenarios is waiting for a clear signal that the interloper is "threatening you with gross bodily harm or imminent death." By the time it's well confirmed, you're either dead or you've got a gun in your face and you're being stripped of any weapons you may have, so you have to wait for your chance to slip up and disarm the intruder in hand-to-hand combat. This is non-ideal. Thus the scale for a reasonable belief that you're being threatened is pretty low--and honestly, if I kicked your door down and rushed into your house, would you smile and serve me tea? What the FUCK are people doing in MY HOUSE?
Dogs don't like fishing. That's cats.
One bowl of Colon Blow has more fiber.
It's a good business strategy. Don't make your business a charity; make your business operate on strategies that are actually powerful business motivators, good for the business, but also good for the consumer. Don't just tempt the consumer; keep them from ever leaving. Make sure only wingnuts have much to say about how horrible you are.
The only concerns about Google are quite constant: they're an information trafficking company. They traffic information. Information to design ad campaigns, information to present ads to the consumer. Their base of information grows with each new service--and every time you opt into a new, useful service, you know the cost. The complaint of Google's ever-expanding reach of information gathering is mostly smoke and mirrors: this is what Google DOES, it's the same as when we were just using search. It's bigger, but not more sinister; if it's inexcusable now, it should have been toxic when they were tiny.
Google's best business plan is to make sure their ever-expanding empire is always profitable, but never really threatening. They need to not scare off the consumer. By keeping strict controls on how they provide their services--their real services--they avoid a greater consumer concern. They don't want to be the source of your six hundred phone calls per week from credit card offers; they want to be quiet, unknown, and harmless. They want to have to hide things just for business reasons, to protect from their competitors; they want as little to hide from the small consumers--who could be offended and then leave and diminish the strength of their product--as possible, so that any discovery and release of information is overall non-offensive.
That's the best way to do it. Make sure your business is good for consumers by merit of being based on a strategy that's good for consumers. Make a man cut off his own arm for the chance to shed some of his own blood, rather than the chance to escape your tyranny. Only the insane will cut themselves off from you.
You can argue you lost the potential to make money off of me
No point in making cars or designing cars anymore. Good luck and godspeed, but you can pay the Government (by taxes) to design and build local mass transit systems instead.
No one is saying that they are entitled to have a job, so get off your high horse. They are saying that jobs in America should go to Americans, unless there is not someone qualified for that position.
Actually yes, yes that is exactly what they are saying. Colleges have advertised that a degree gets you a job, people have sued colleges because they didn't get a job in 3 months, and I've had numerous people go off on me about how they paid $$$$$ for a degree in Engineering and they damn well DESERVE a job.
The problem with the jobs going to only Americans and not people we let come into this country or people telecommuting from India is that the world market lets folks make shit cheaper elsewhere. Imagine if TrekBikes packed up its corporate HQ or popped up a subsidiary and imported bikes from TrekBikesCN instead of staying at home, employing American management, and paying American taxes. That's what happens when it's easier to in-source your manufacturing by outsourcing your corporate HQ. That's what happens in some states, in some cities even--the taxes go up, the businesses move to a more favorable state entirely.
The "American Jobs" argument is essentially "you must hire us and not them, for they are cheaper but we are worth more," which comes down to "pay us more than market value for our skills because we deserve $25/hr even though you could hire someone for $15/hr."
Also as for your piracy issue. People made music, and made artwork before there was a demand for those pieces, so that is not a very sound logic. Part of your problem is you assume that those who pirate are willing to pay if they did not take it. Studies have shown that most are not, therefore the artists, and really the studios are losing little to nothing from them.
Did they have the Internet and cheap mass-production in every home during the Baroque era?
Recurring topics on Slashdot are surprisingly consistent. Like, piracy.
People feel they're entitled to jobs, and so the job going to someone else is them STEALING their jobs. Really?
People feel they're entitled to entertainment that they can copy without direct, immediate impact on the produces of said entertainment (i.e. the original producer isn't involved in the copy), and so it's not STEALING to download music and movies and not pay for them. Really?
The reality is somebody else started that business, they make the product, and those damn Mexicans--shitty workers they may be--are actually getting the jobs and doing the work and accepting the lower pay. Stop being so entitled to a $25/hour salary and take $15/hr like a Mexican and you can work, IF the company doesn't feel like hiring non-domestic workers anyway because--face it--it's their company. A US decision to tariff outsourcing and the like would be an ECONOMIC decision, but not a matter of whether or not you or anyone else is entitled to a job; it's a matter of overall health of the local economy and of economic sustainability, and Joe Plumber can pound sand. Any benefit to the American's ability to get a job is a side-effect of an effort to improve the American economy (which would have such implications, yes).
Piracy is the same issue. If nobody paid for music, well... nobody would make music anymore. Before recorded music, musicians made their living on their music, on performance. Now there's so many more musicians, you can't make a living playing banjo sitting on the street corner and a bard's no use carrying tales from one place to another.
Yes but he misses that back then hemp was also not considered for its food uses (the seeds are good food, good for a nutritious oil, a feed stock for animals, etc.) and its biofuel potential (oils from the seeds, possible use breaking down the cellulose from non-useful material--the innards are good, but isn't the outside casing of the stem and such useless?).
Additionally, hemp has historically been less useful to cultivate than cotton because slave labor was more suited to producing cotton. After the civil war, cotton production became more expensive; however cotton cultivation technologies advanced even during the time of slavery, with the invention of the "cotton engine" that removed seeds from cotton. The article states new cultivation methods exist for hemp. Opening the market wouldn't be a bad thing: they have tools to put to use, and any demand also creates demand for improved tools.
Deforestation isn't a good argument. Less land for farming means more land to build houses, after all (however my district rep quite enjoyed the discussion we had about houses in trees... not ready for proposal, some engineering and experimentation needed, as well as planning). Use of land useless for other things, however, is a good argument: a lot of money is going into switchgrass for this purpose. Switchgrass is nice because it can be used to produce ethanol or PLA (plastic).
Hemp stands in as a multi-use, easy-to-cultivate product on marginal land. Like corn, soy, and switchgrass, it won't solve a large portion of the energy needs of this country. Unlike corn and soy, it grows more readily with less energy input (fertilization, conditioning of the land, pesticides, etc). That it supplies a useful fiber makes it attractive to the textile industries--corn/soy farmers like farming corn and soy, but cotton farmers aren't going to switch as readily since they're familiar with growing and grading plant fiber crop. Cotton farmers would more readily grow hemp and harvest it for its fibers--an industry with a use for cotton-hemp blend (30% hemp is excellent) would support this well, and the rest of the plant is useful for other things.
Don't think that anything is a magic bullet. Algae is silly.
Privoxy.
Big deal, there's fake people on the internet.
I know, we should be examining the real problem of fake tits on women. Sure a slim, curvy girl with big knockers is nice; but we all know a B-cup barbie doesn't need double-Ds.
So? What's your point?
How about industrial hemp? Grows on shit land; produces fiber that can be blended with cotton for a soft, strong product; leaves behind much cellulose to process into ethanol (or compost) as well as seeds that you can press for oil and process into biodiesel (and feed). You can smoke it, but by the time it gets you high you'll be dead for want of lungs that aren't beef jerky.
What other applications are on PS3 / 360 that you feel you'd miss ?
ItsNotNintendo.app, the premier hard-core application for real, cool gamers who play Call of Duty and all other games almost exactly like Call of Duty but each one more awesome than the last because it has new guns and darker graphics (Doom 3 excluded, because you can't get much darker than that and we want to keep getting darker).
"Diversification" is a ridiculous concept. It's like if you would just diversify your chances of losing are minimized... along with your chances of gaining. The ultimate diversification is to hold an S&P index tracker--hundreds of stocks in the market. But, then you hold exactly one security... wait, what? How is this different from buying them individually?
Diversification is a stupid core strategy. You need a real strategy; diversification is a side-effect. Hedging for example, people leverage various things against each other--short gold and buy oil, you're essentially buying oil in gold, you're assuming oil is going to gain value faster than gold and so you're taking X amount of gold, getting dollars for it, and buying oil with those dollars. You're buying oil in gold. Diverse holdings, because of strategy.
Think about all those people who lose money because they buy into a handful of good stocks and precious metals "for diversification" and then the silver market drops. Contrast that to people who buy in 3 different markets and had held gold until recently while it grew, then broke out when it leveled off (and is arguably going into decline) last year--they also had the mining companies (basic materials) and some other stuff. Why? Because a variety of things are good investments and they've diversified.
Buying an index fund (a sector fund is an index fund) is "diversification" like a consolidated debt object. Some good, some bad. The goal of the stock market is to de-diversify, to specify into only the undervalued so you can sell it when its value rises to correct.
You're American. You eat cheese you spray out of a can.
Kyoto eggplant has a deeper, richer flavor than Italian eggplant. The red Japanese carrots (and sweet potatoes!) are really sweet. Black pudding's pretty good, I can get german Bludwurst from an immigrant butcher that makes his own but that's the only source I have. Haven't found genuine or close haggis.