Why have traffic lights when you can have a robocop which has red, yellow, and green lights? They probably went with the robocop traffic lights to save money, as they cost 1/2 to 1/8 what regular traffic lights cost.
If you have until they're 18, wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves, and to make their plans. Then you can find out which pros and cons apply to them (eg working/studying in the US vs just paying taxes).
Cheaper to heavily subsidize nuclear, than face the massive cleanup costs when nothing goes wrong at a coal power plant. Do you know a safe way to deal with the massive amounts of radioactive waste that come from those coal plants? How about cleaning up the mercury, the particulates, the CO2? In coal power, the gains have always been privatized while the costs and risks socialized.
To clarify, by "insane environmentalists" I mean people who's actions result in a higher proportion of our electricity coming from coal power plants, which in their standard operation kill fish, birds, emit radiation, cause cancer, have a global environmental impact -- and all this on a scale that dwarfs other alternatives. While the insane environmentalists don't think they support coal, what they do is oppose other power generation systems because they're not perfect leaving current coal plants as a necessity to produce the power they opposed alternatives to. Similarly, some insane environmentalists support cost-prohibitive sources of energy and leach funding from other alternatives, which would have reduced our reliance on coal and oil much more effectively.
And i will say it again : nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.
Insane environmentalists are prohibitively expensive. (No insult intended to environmentalists who have done their research before supporting/opposing something.)
We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country.
I don't see how that would be possible, nor how it would be a good idea. Suppose a country legalizes espionage on foreign nations or corporations -- the other nations would never put up with this, and if they can't arrest the people responsible they would declare war instead. There's a bunch of laws against things that would be sufficiently repulsive that people would not want to accept it among their citizens even if it had occurred in a foreign nation. On the other hand, if petty obscure laws were enforced like that no one would be able to travel anywhere -- but that, I think, is up to the nations in question to decide.
How about a compromise? You apply this rule to your own jurisdiction, and don't try to enforce it on other countries.
Next Year: We have a completely new api and are going to make the old one irrelevant yet again
So that's why they skipped Windows 9 -- they wanted to keep up that pattern of "every other version is crap", but they wrote two crap ones in a row so they had to skip a version number.
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female], ranged from 200 to 200 across the cohort, was near normally distributed, and was found to be highly predictive of 10-year survival
I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (Congress, judges, juries, etc.), or do you believe Snowden taking the law into his own hands?
I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (the Constitution), or do you believe in the various branches of government taking the law into their own hands? Are you OK with the NSA treating the Constitution as optional, the judicial system treating the Constitution as optional by deciding not to prosecute them, Congress treating the Constitution as optional by passing laws that the Constitution forbids? Remember, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, also the closest to the will of the people, and what people like Snowden have sworn to protect from enemies both internal and external.
Could have sworn most of the criminals involved in the Snowden revelations, are not only in the US but could be easily gathered from their cushy government offices to stand trial. It's only fair to go after the worst criminals first, before going after the people who reported them.
I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It means that if you willfully commit an act, and that act happens to be illegal, then you are criminally liable even if you didn't know the act in question is illegal.
I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're a cop, a politician, a CEO, the NSA..." It means that if you're one of the little people, you're totally screwed because you didn't spend double your lifetime reading the thousands of laws that you're supposed to follow. But if you're, say, a cop, when it turns out that you've been violating the 4th Amendment by using a Stingray device, then commit perjury/parallel construction in court to hide it, then you get to say "oops, we didn't know there was anything wrong with that, besides the politicians said we could, and no you can't prosecute them either".
It's about time, but I really hope their 'factual accuracy' engine gets open sourced so we can be clear on exactly how they determine what are 'facts'
They pretty much said their algorithm is "the internet said it, so it must be true". I hope they at least have some sort of weighting system to give experts more credibility on the subject of their expertise, rather than ranking everyone equally. Also hope the fact-checking bot is smarter than ALICE.
Or in this case, get a computer not traceable to you to download (but not store) every single document they have, on a loop forever. Whoever checks the server logs will freak out and it will get fixed. And if it is traceable to you, you'll get fixed too (but rather too late for that since you already brought yourself to their attention, and because of you they have to spend money and they're not happy).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have been satisfied if they had merely maintained a credible pretense of not being evil.
Which, incidentally, has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic woes of that continent.
Why have traffic lights when you can have a robocop which has red, yellow, and green lights? They probably went with the robocop traffic lights to save money, as they cost 1/2 to 1/8 what regular traffic lights cost.
They'll know where the call originated from if they'd have to pay a fine for the privilege of "not knowing".
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with screwing your security staff to save a dollar.
If you have until they're 18, wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves, and to make their plans. Then you can find out which pros and cons apply to them (eg working/studying in the US vs just paying taxes).
Cheaper to heavily subsidize nuclear, than face the massive cleanup costs when nothing goes wrong at a coal power plant. Do you know a safe way to deal with the massive amounts of radioactive waste that come from those coal plants? How about cleaning up the mercury, the particulates, the CO2? In coal power, the gains have always been privatized while the costs and risks socialized.
To clarify, by "insane environmentalists" I mean people who's actions result in a higher proportion of our electricity coming from coal power plants, which in their standard operation kill fish, birds, emit radiation, cause cancer, have a global environmental impact -- and all this on a scale that dwarfs other alternatives. While the insane environmentalists don't think they support coal, what they do is oppose other power generation systems because they're not perfect leaving current coal plants as a necessity to produce the power they opposed alternatives to. Similarly, some insane environmentalists support cost-prohibitive sources of energy and leach funding from other alternatives, which would have reduced our reliance on coal and oil much more effectively.
And i will say it again : nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.
Insane environmentalists are prohibitively expensive. (No insult intended to environmentalists who have done their research before supporting/opposing something.)
We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country.
I don't see how that would be possible, nor how it would be a good idea. Suppose a country legalizes espionage on foreign nations or corporations -- the other nations would never put up with this, and if they can't arrest the people responsible they would declare war instead. There's a bunch of laws against things that would be sufficiently repulsive that people would not want to accept it among their citizens even if it had occurred in a foreign nation. On the other hand, if petty obscure laws were enforced like that no one would be able to travel anywhere -- but that, I think, is up to the nations in question to decide.
How about a compromise? You apply this rule to your own jurisdiction, and don't try to enforce it on other countries.
For every patent invalidated, a hundred more take its place.
This complaint is illogical. I estimate a 99.9732156% chance that it will be ignored.
Next Year: We have a completely new api and are going to make the old one irrelevant yet again
So that's why they skipped Windows 9 -- they wanted to keep up that pattern of "every other version is crap", but they wrote two crap ones in a row so they had to skip a version number.
Looks like what you're talking about is the "winner edit".
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female], ranged from 200 to 200 across the cohort, was near normally distributed, and was found to be highly predictive of 10-year survival
I demand equal life expectancy for equal fitness!
I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (Congress, judges, juries, etc.), or do you believe Snowden taking the law into his own hands?
I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (the Constitution), or do you believe in the various branches of government taking the law into their own hands? Are you OK with the NSA treating the Constitution as optional, the judicial system treating the Constitution as optional by deciding not to prosecute them, Congress treating the Constitution as optional by passing laws that the Constitution forbids? Remember, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, also the closest to the will of the people, and what people like Snowden have sworn to protect from enemies both internal and external.
In a shocking development, the answer to the question posed by the headline is once again "no".
Snowden is guilty of turning over a detailed review of our internal security apparatus to our national enemies
I know it doesn't look that way, but technically the American public is not an enemy of the USA.
Could have sworn most of the criminals involved in the Snowden revelations, are not only in the US but could be easily gathered from their cushy government offices to stand trial. It's only fair to go after the worst criminals first, before going after the people who reported them.
I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It means that if you willfully commit an act, and that act happens to be illegal, then you are criminally liable even if you didn't know the act in question is illegal.
I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're a cop, a politician, a CEO, the NSA..." It means that if you're one of the little people, you're totally screwed because you didn't spend double your lifetime reading the thousands of laws that you're supposed to follow. But if you're, say, a cop, when it turns out that you've been violating the 4th Amendment by using a Stingray device, then commit perjury/parallel construction in court to hide it, then you get to say "oops, we didn't know there was anything wrong with that, besides the politicians said we could, and no you can't prosecute them either".
It's about time, but I really hope their 'factual accuracy' engine gets open sourced so we can be clear on exactly how they determine what are 'facts'
They pretty much said their algorithm is "the internet said it, so it must be true". I hope they at least have some sort of weighting system to give experts more credibility on the subject of their expertise, rather than ranking everyone equally. Also hope the fact-checking bot is smarter than ALICE.
Or in this case, get a computer not traceable to you to download (but not store) every single document they have, on a loop forever. Whoever checks the server logs will freak out and it will get fixed. And if it is traceable to you, you'll get fixed too (but rather too late for that since you already brought yourself to their attention, and because of you they have to spend money and they're not happy).
It's about time that the average Chinese laborer had a high enough standard of living that robots are cheaper.
Domain squatting is over. I, for one, welcome our new entire TLD squatting overlords. </sarcasm>
I'm registering the .notevil TLD.
We exploded them like they were tic-tacs? How do you explode a tic-tac? Calling Bad Analogy Police...
Police don't respond to bad analogies. Calling the bad analogy tic-tactical team...