A related issue, IMO, is that the bottom of every cheque is printed with an immutable account and routing number, and these two numbers are sufficient to perform deposits or withdrawals on your account in any amount.
Including *more* than you have in your account, if you fell for the bank's own "overdraft protection" scam.
But, he point of classification is to keep information from getting out into the public or the wrong hands. If it's already everywhere then there's not really much point in continuing to maintain the facade that it's actually secure...
In a series of films about an archaeologist who fights Nazis, Thuggee cultists, and Soviet psychics, and keeps unleashing vast supernatural powers stored in antiques, the monkeys are what struck you as implausible?
Indeed. Because the monkeys were gratuitous and unnecessary. There was there to show, "Hey look, we can have Tarzan monkeys if we want to." It's as today's directors and screenwriters have never even heard of Anton Chekhov.
The Indian Jones movies are supposed to be homages to the old adventure serials, but the Crystal Skull movie, for reasons above, was cartoony, instead. Heck, they even had a character straight out of "The Bullwinkle and Rocky Show"....
Yeah, but 60 years ago, it was anaglyph. It was really gimmicky. There have been a lot of improvements since then, and several movies in the past couple years that used it to great effect, enhancing the setting without overpowering the story.
Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides.
And that's not even the half of it. What kind of idiot company would bother to sell bee-lethal pesticides?! No bees no crops, no crops, no need to buy more pesticide!
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax...you can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself.
What you say is true, in the same way that it is true that you can avoid being raped by having sex with your would-be rapist.
The point is that for every tax that currently exists, you can avoid the tax by refraining from the taxed activity. Generally, the amount you are taxed is related in some way to the amount you engage in that activity, as well. Even the closest analogue, requiring people to have auto insurance, works that that way: you could elect not to drive yourself. Many feel that even that goes too far.
The only activity you could refrain from, if you wanted to avoid the health care tax, would be breathing.
That is not the reason that few satellites in earth orbit use RTGs. There is extremely low risk of a release of radioactive material: RTGs are designed to withstand a ballistic impact from orbit, and have several extremely tough systems in place to achieve that many times over.
But that also makes them heavy, and that's the real reason you don't see them in earth orbit. That and the nearly unobstructed view of 1300 W/m^2 from the external nuclear power plant.
Those were passive IR, not active X-Ray. There's a world of difference in both the theoretical fidelity and the real-world results. Failure of one does not necessarily mean that the other will suffer similar limitations.
And while I'm at it, I could also attack the "These haven't prevented a single terrorist attack!" claim. You don't really know that, do you. If a terrorist or hijacker thinks "I should do X... Oh wait, X isn't possible any more due to this precaution. Oh well, nevermind then." it won't show up in any statistics. (Yes, there are plenty of other ways they could harm people with but every time someone has to give up their preferred course of action for a plan B is a small victory... Because it should be assumed that there were reasons for preferring plan A in the first place.)
Well, let's do the experiment, then. Keep the groputrons and the pornorays on part of the terminals, but keep a section of the terminal open with minimal security measures. Maybe just a magnetometer at the gate to screen out gross concerns, if that much. If it makes it more palatable of an experiment, limit the max takeoff weight and fuel to the size of a 737, to mitigate the damage in the event of a planes as missiles attack.
I would even pay a slight premium on plane tickets (as infrequently as I travel, though...) to be part of this experiment.
Would YOU volunteer to walk through these things dozens of times a day over the course of a week?
What I wonder is why they didn't do a risk analysis and realize that the machines and everything cost way, way, way too much for way, way, way too little improvement of the threat. Or I would wonder, if 99% of my friends, family members, coworkers, weren't freakin' scardy ninnies who actually think all this is a good thing. (or maybe just want to be pantomime spies for a day when they're on vacation...)
the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff helped sell them to the government and the government mandated them and removed everyone's rights.
Close, but not quite. They still haven't taken away your right to take flying lessons and fly your own damn plane.
Unfortunately, we also have a whole bunch of schemes that allegedly will reduce CO2 emission, but are in fact actually either basically neutral or sometimes even make things worse, being pushed through legislatures as THE ANSWER, in an attempt to siphon off some tax money...
There are not very many solutions that will actually work. 1) Reduce energy use (and not piddling feel-good conservation efforts. Really reduce it. As in, significant quality-of-life changes)
2) More Nuclear power plants (that don't throw away 98% of their fuel because it needs to be reprocessed....)
3) More geothermal plants
4) More hydropower dams
5) Maybe solar, if storage and distribution can be solved
6) Maybe wind, if storage and distribution can be solved
And the last two are not really currently viable, there are only so many elevated bodies of water, and "deep" geothermal (i.e. mining the mantel for heat) isn't really viable either, so everything but (2) nuclear (or (1) "living less") are basically limited by geography.
If you really and truly believe that reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions significantly and in the near term is something we should do, then you need to do a much better job of selling (1), or quit protesting (2).
But the constitution does not establish your rights. It is supposed to protect them. Some of which are enumerated, but the enumeration of which is not intended to imply the nonexistence of rights not mentioned.*
Paraphrased from... the 9th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It isn't that we've "just" crossed the line. It's that we keep crossing the line (or nudging the line, or whatever you want to call it) and people are so apathetic or frightened that they don't do anything.
This is finally a line where "normal" people (as in, the at least 2/3 of people who don't really care about their rights as long as can watch sweaty guys in tight pants play a children's game on plastic grass) will maybe start to put up some resistance, so there's a good reason for lovers of liberty to harp on it: it's a line that can maybe be drawn.
Unfortunately, based on conversations with my own family around thanksgiviing, I have very little hope for that. They will make jokes, and complain about the discomfort, but they'll still go through the high energy degradotron machine without even thinking about how they being treated worse than criminals in a supermax prison because of their horribly incriminating "desire to get from one place to another."
Pfft the bars don't mean anything. If they want to present a meaningful comparison, they could show decibels of microvolts emf, microwatts received power, SNR.. Even the bar representation could have been meaningful, if they'd only declare a meaning for it.
More "bars" in more places?! what the hell is that even supposed to mean?
Slashdot Mirror
A related issue, IMO, is that the bottom of every cheque is printed with an immutable account and routing number, and these two numbers are sufficient to perform deposits or withdrawals on your account in any amount.
Including *more* than you have in your account, if you fell for the bank's own "overdraft protection" scam.
But, he point of classification is to keep information from getting out into the public or the wrong hands. If it's already everywhere then there's not really much point in continuing to maintain the facade that it's actually secure...
So what you're saying is, you still need to take the reference footage, even if you do the "mocap" manually.
A few years ago... they weren't....
In a series of films about an archaeologist who fights Nazis, Thuggee cultists, and Soviet psychics, and keeps unleashing vast supernatural powers stored in antiques, the monkeys are what struck you as implausible?
Indeed. Because the monkeys were gratuitous and unnecessary. There was there to show, "Hey look, we can have Tarzan monkeys if we want to." It's as today's directors and screenwriters have never even heard of Anton Chekhov.
The Indian Jones movies are supposed to be homages to the old adventure serials, but the Crystal Skull movie, for reasons above, was cartoony, instead. Heck, they even had a character straight out of "The Bullwinkle and Rocky Show"....
Yeah, but 60 years ago, it was anaglyph. It was really gimmicky. There have been a lot of improvements since then, and several movies in the past couple years that used it to great effect, enhancing the setting without overpowering the story.
Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides.
And that's not even the half of it. What kind of idiot company would bother to sell bee-lethal pesticides?! No bees no crops, no crops, no need to buy more pesticide!
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax...you can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself.
What you say is true, in the same way that it is true that you can avoid being raped by having sex with your would-be rapist.
The point is that for every tax that currently exists, you can avoid the tax by refraining from the taxed activity. Generally, the amount you are taxed is related in some way to the amount you engage in that activity, as well. Even the closest analogue, requiring people to have auto insurance, works that that way: you could elect not to drive yourself. Many feel that even that goes too far.
The only activity you could refrain from, if you wanted to avoid the health care tax, would be breathing.
I bet you could send a crapload of 140 character text messages over them, though...
That is not the reason that few satellites in earth orbit use RTGs. There is extremely low risk of a release of radioactive material: RTGs are designed to withstand a ballistic impact from orbit, and have several extremely tough systems in place to achieve that many times over.
But that also makes them heavy, and that's the real reason you don't see them in earth orbit. That and the nearly unobstructed view of 1300 W/m^2 from the external nuclear power plant.
god is unchanging: the only thing unchanging is the truth.
I've said this about 1984, but it's equally applicable here: Please read the Bible before making comments about the Bible.
Or at least, failing that, read the Torah, which is included as the first few books of the bible.
Or at least, the first book of the bible.
Or at least, the first sixth of the first book of the bible.
That being said, "Noah."
Yeah, because those guys left Europe because of research grant availability.
Those were passive IR, not active X-Ray. There's a world of difference in both the theoretical fidelity and the real-world results. Failure of one does not necessarily mean that the other will suffer similar limitations.
And while I'm at it, I could also attack the "These haven't prevented a single terrorist attack!" claim. You don't really know that, do you. If a terrorist or hijacker thinks "I should do X... Oh wait, X isn't possible any more due to this precaution. Oh well, nevermind then." it won't show up in any statistics. (Yes, there are plenty of other ways they could harm people with but every time someone has to give up their preferred course of action for a plan B is a small victory... Because it should be assumed that there were reasons for preferring plan A in the first place.)
Well, let's do the experiment, then. Keep the groputrons and the pornorays on part of the terminals, but keep a section of the terminal open with minimal security measures. Maybe just a magnetometer at the gate to screen out gross concerns, if that much. If it makes it more palatable of an experiment, limit the max takeoff weight and fuel to the size of a 737, to mitigate the damage in the event of a planes as missiles attack.
I would even pay a slight premium on plane tickets (as infrequently as I travel, though...) to be part of this experiment.
Aaaannd?? What would be wrong with this?
Heck, maybe there should be a complementary bowl of derringers at the gate for any non-minors who want one.
Would YOU volunteer to walk through these things dozens of times a day over the course of a week?
What I wonder is why they didn't do a risk analysis and realize that the machines and everything cost way, way, way too much for way, way, way too little improvement of the threat. Or I would wonder, if 99% of my friends, family members, coworkers, weren't freakin' scardy ninnies who actually think all this is a good thing. (or maybe just want to be pantomime spies for a day when they're on vacation...)
the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff helped sell them to the government and the government mandated them and removed everyone's rights.
Close, but not quite. They still haven't taken away your right to take flying lessons and fly your own damn plane.
Unfortunately, we also have a whole bunch of schemes that allegedly will reduce CO2 emission, but are in fact actually either basically neutral or sometimes even make things worse, being pushed through legislatures as THE ANSWER, in an attempt to siphon off some tax money...
There are not very many solutions that will actually work.
1) Reduce energy use (and not piddling feel-good conservation efforts. Really reduce it. As in, significant quality-of-life changes)
2) More Nuclear power plants (that don't throw away 98% of their fuel because it needs to be reprocessed....)
3) More geothermal plants
4) More hydropower dams
5) Maybe solar, if storage and distribution can be solved
6) Maybe wind, if storage and distribution can be solved
And the last two are not really currently viable, there are only so many elevated bodies of water, and "deep" geothermal (i.e. mining the mantel for heat) isn't really viable either, so everything but (2) nuclear (or (1) "living less") are basically limited by geography.
If you really and truly believe that reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions significantly and in the near term is something we should do, then you need to do a much better job of selling (1), or quit protesting (2).
Wait... They're drilling in the penguin exhibit at the local aquarium?
They get their powers from our yellow sun?
Unknown? Seriously? Nick DiPaolo
But the constitution does not establish your rights. It is supposed to protect them. Some of which are enumerated, but the enumeration of which is not intended to imply the nonexistence of rights not mentioned.*
Paraphrased from... the 9th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It isn't that we've "just" crossed the line. It's that we keep crossing the line (or nudging the line, or whatever you want to call it) and people are so apathetic or frightened that they don't do anything.
This is finally a line where "normal" people (as in, the at least 2/3 of people who don't really care about their rights as long as can watch sweaty guys in tight pants play a children's game on plastic grass) will maybe start to put up some resistance, so there's a good reason for lovers of liberty to harp on it: it's a line that can maybe be drawn.
Unfortunately, based on conversations with my own family around thanksgiviing, I have very little hope for that. They will make jokes, and complain about the discomfort, but they'll still go through the high energy degradotron machine without even thinking about how they being treated worse than criminals in a supermax prison because of their horribly incriminating "desire to get from one place to another."
You're in a long distance relationship and you get a lot of dropped calls?
Have you considered the possibility that you are not, in fact, in a long distance relationship..?
Pfft the bars don't mean anything. If they want to present a meaningful comparison, they could show decibels of microvolts emf, microwatts received power, SNR.. Even the bar representation could have been meaningful, if they'd only declare a meaning for it.
More "bars" in more places?! what the hell is that even supposed to mean?