The key difference is I actually can't know the premise that I am postulating, whereas the posters in this thread can read all the laws they want if they really wanted to educate themselves. In fact, in this case, the relevant statute was linked to directly in TFA. The fact that it seems most would rather bitch according to their pre-defined notions rather than read it speaks volumes.
What is your basis for concluding that? To my knowledge, the FBI warning pre-dates the widespread piracy of DVD's on the internet. What control sample can you point to to support your claim that without the warning, it would not be even more common? Or do you just suppose that the practice is already at a practical maximum?
This includes most of the posters bitching in the thread about transparency, without even using the transparency they have to read the act. Nor, I would bet, have any of them any actual desire to challenge the meeting closures. In fact, I'm certain the majority had no knowledge that there was any such statute. This is, for them, nothing more than their two minutes of hate against America, or Bush, or the Man, or whoever they think is keeping them down. They don't know the details. They don't want to know the details. Their ignorance is rationalized by their need to rage against the machine. Shame on the editors for enabling this behavior.
Clarification: 10(a)(1)(2) would still apply in cases where the meeting was closed but national security would not be compromised by publishing timely notice of the closed meeting (and even then, the 15-day period is not statutory). But section 10(a)(1)(2) is clearly not required if necessary for "reasons of national security."
It's worth pointing out that even the provision you cite is not required "when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security." Presumably the President can delegate the authority to make that decision to his executive appointees, so it would appear that if the meeting is to be closed, that clause would not even apply.
Slashbots' general ignorance of the actual law is certainly not new. The law specifically allows closed meetings, and I may be missing something, but do not actually see any mention of the requirement of a 15-day notice of closed meetings in the act itself.
Do you know where that 15-day notice comes from? I'm looking at the Act itself, specifically, Section 10, and see no mention of a 15 day notice requirement. In fact, searching the PDF, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a 15-day notice anywhere in the Act.
Federation credits are used for white-market, official transactions with alien societies which still depend on the use of money. These credits are collected by alien races and can be used to "purchase" goods and services back from the Federation. However, only authorized and accepted entities are allowed to trade Federation credits back to the Federation, such that "laundering" credits is virtually impossible. Federation citizens are allocated credits to "spend" with alien vendors typically only on an individual need basis, and all uses of credits have to be approved by Starfleet beforehand. Starfleet officers stationed in locations with frequent interaction with alien races (like DS9) are also allocated a small number of discretionary credits based on rank for things like drinks, services, and souvenirs. No citizen of the Federation can receive credits from any entity other than the Federation.
Bars of gold-pressed latinum are used out of necessity for transactions that are unauthorized, illegal, or otherwise black-market. While technically illegal, Starfleet will often "look the other way."
That's all irrelevant, since by that time in the 24th century, the very concept of private property has been outlawed. People can still have certain possessions at the sufferance of Starfleet, but there is no buying and selling as money has been outlawed. All research and development is conducted by Starfleet and owned by Starfleet. All people labor for Starfleet, and Starfleet promises to see that their needs are met.
To play devil's advocate: One of the goals of judicial sentencing is deterrance. When piracy is widespread and enforcement is difficult, penalties must be disproportionately high to have a deterrant effect.
Once all the Germans were war-like, and mean
But that couldn't happen again;
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
The negativity is due to people who completely bought into the hype once before and were let down. Now they assume that all hype is false, and if they turn out to be wrong, pleasant surprise! Still, it's rude of them to patronize people for being hopeful.
Alt-tab now only shows an application icon. Even if you use the "enhanced" alt-tab, which shows screen shots of the windows, it is slow, the image is too tiny, it doesn't show any motion ocurring in the windows, and it is unwieldly if you have a large number of windows open.
In the third [screen]shot down, the windows stacked at a 3-D angle looks horrible. It might amuse little kids for a while though (clippy all over again)
What in the world does clippy have to do with this? Suspend judgement on this one until you see it in action. (There are demos at Channel9 if you are really interested.) It's a mode that's activated by a certain hotkey. While you hold the key down, you can use your mouse wheel or keys to flip through the stack of windows. Then when you let go of the hotkey, the one on top of the stack comes to the front. It actually looks pretty handy, like a 3D Alt+Tab.
I most certainly do question it when the MSM does it. The only time I'll give those stories anything more than the weight of rumor is when there is independent corroborating evidence. I actually gave this a lot of thought when studying the Fourth Amendment and what standards are necessary to establish probable cause from anonymous tipsters.
The news media will just have to learn to do a little investigative reporting, or else get some more courageous informants.
Maybe ther will eventually be a similar device that appears to counteract one source of gravity, perhaps by utilizing other sources.
I sincerely hope so. My point was that like all of the other "anti" things I listed, "antigravity" - especially in the sense of free-fall, or wightlessness, is really just the absence of gravitational acceleration. I do not believe, therefore, that the ability to generate artificially induced gravity means that it would therefore be "simple" to create a region of gravitational absence, any more than being able to start a fire for heat meant that it was "simple" to air-condition a building or being able to scream real loud means that it is "simple" to create noise-cancelling effects.
Sorry, anonymous source=anonymous coward for the purposes of evaluating credibility. I simply won't believe uncorroborated statements based on anonymous hearsay.
If you can create gravity, it should be easy to create antigravity - i.e., free fall.
I'm not so sure about that. Consider the following analogies:
If you can create light, it should be easy to create antilight, i.e., darkness.
If you can create sound, it should be easy to create antisound, i.e., silence.
If you can create heat, it should be easy to creat antiheat, i.e., cold.
I think it's probably a mutation of "[at release] 60% of the code in Vista will have been re-written [as compared to Windows XP] [over the entire development process, not between now and release].
That's my best guess as to what this figure really is.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice theory, but I'm mainly concerned about what the statute requires.
The key difference is I actually can't know the premise that I am postulating, whereas the posters in this thread can read all the laws they want if they really wanted to educate themselves. In fact, in this case, the relevant statute was linked to directly in TFA. The fact that it seems most would rather bitch according to their pre-defined notions rather than read it speaks volumes.
What is your basis for concluding that? To my knowledge, the FBI warning pre-dates the widespread piracy of DVD's on the internet. What control sample can you point to to support your claim that without the warning, it would not be even more common? Or do you just suppose that the practice is already at a practical maximum?
This includes most of the posters bitching in the thread about transparency, without even using the transparency they have to read the act. Nor, I would bet, have any of them any actual desire to challenge the meeting closures. In fact, I'm certain the majority had no knowledge that there was any such statute. This is, for them, nothing more than their two minutes of hate against America, or Bush, or the Man, or whoever they think is keeping them down. They don't know the details. They don't want to know the details. Their ignorance is rationalized by their need to rage against the machine. Shame on the editors for enabling this behavior.
The recourse is to elect officials who will change the law. By your definition, nobody anywhere has any freedom.
Clarification: 10(a)(1)(2) would still apply in cases where the meeting was closed but national security would not be compromised by publishing timely notice of the closed meeting (and even then, the 15-day period is not statutory). But section 10(a)(1)(2) is clearly not required if necessary for "reasons of national security."
It's worth pointing out that even the provision you cite is not required "when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security." Presumably the President can delegate the authority to make that decision to his executive appointees, so it would appear that if the meeting is to be closed, that clause would not even apply.
Slashbots' general ignorance of the actual law is certainly not new. The law specifically allows closed meetings, and I may be missing something, but do not actually see any mention of the requirement of a 15-day notice of closed meetings in the act itself.
Do you know where that 15-day notice comes from? I'm looking at the Act itself, specifically, Section 10, and see no mention of a 15 day notice requirement. In fact, searching the PDF, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a 15-day notice anywhere in the Act.
Yours is, I think, the stronger point. Utilitarian ethics ultimately butts against individual justice.
Bars of gold-pressed latinum are used out of necessity for transactions that are unauthorized, illegal, or otherwise black-market. While technically illegal, Starfleet will often "look the other way."
That's all irrelevant, since by that time in the 24th century, the very concept of private property has been outlawed. People can still have certain possessions at the sufferance of Starfleet, but there is no buying and selling as money has been outlawed. All research and development is conducted by Starfleet and owned by Starfleet. All people labor for Starfleet, and Starfleet promises to see that their needs are met.
Do Jimmy Cagney!
To play devil's advocate: One of the goals of judicial sentencing is deterrance. When piracy is widespread and enforcement is difficult, penalties must be disproportionately high to have a deterrant effect.
Once all the Germans were war-like, and mean
But that couldn't happen again;
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
The negativity is due to people who completely bought into the hype once before and were let down. Now they assume that all hype is false, and if they turn out to be wrong, pleasant surprise! Still, it's rude of them to patronize people for being hopeful.
Here's an older video looking at a build of the shell UI:http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1 14694
Alt-tab now only shows an application icon. Even if you use the "enhanced" alt-tab, which shows screen shots of the windows, it is slow, the image is too tiny, it doesn't show any motion ocurring in the windows, and it is unwieldly if you have a large number of windows open.
What in the world does clippy have to do with this? Suspend judgement on this one until you see it in action. (There are demos at Channel9 if you are really interested.) It's a mode that's activated by a certain hotkey. While you hold the key down, you can use your mouse wheel or keys to flip through the stack of windows. Then when you let go of the hotkey, the one on top of the stack comes to the front. It actually looks pretty handy, like a 3D Alt+Tab.
The news media will just have to learn to do a little investigative reporting, or else get some more courageous informants.
I sincerely hope so. My point was that like all of the other "anti" things I listed, "antigravity" - especially in the sense of free-fall, or wightlessness, is really just the absence of gravitational acceleration. I do not believe, therefore, that the ability to generate artificially induced gravity means that it would therefore be "simple" to create a region of gravitational absence, any more than being able to start a fire for heat meant that it was "simple" to air-condition a building or being able to scream real loud means that it is "simple" to create noise-cancelling effects.
Sorry, anonymous source=anonymous coward for the purposes of evaluating credibility. I simply won't believe uncorroborated statements based on anonymous hearsay.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of Cray supercomputers!
I'm not so sure about that. Consider the following analogies:
If you can create light, it should be easy to create antilight, i.e., darkness.
If you can create sound, it should be easy to create antisound, i.e., silence.
If you can create heat, it should be easy to creat antiheat, i.e., cold.
That's my best guess as to what this figure really is.