After I saw top rated articles not make it to the front page, and crap-rated articles repeatedly get selected, I realized that the firehose is no more than a convenient fiction. It isn't worth spending time on; doesn't do anything useful.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment
I'm afraid you are completely and utterly incorrect: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
And RIGHT after that, it explains exactly what "reasonable" means in context: (1) probable cause, (2) supported by oath or affirmation, (3) a description of the things being searched for, and (4) a fucking WARRANT.
The 4th says "shall not". It doesn't say "except if we're too stupid to harden the cockpits" or "except when we've disarmed the populace in direct violation of the 2nd amendment" or "unless we want to."
It fucking well says "shall not." This clearly indicates that not only is this not an enumerated power, it can't be formed out of an "interpretation" of one of the enumerated powers, because, get ready, it's FUCKING FORBIDDEN. s-h-a-l-l n-o-t. How hard is that for you morons to understand? It means NO!
I refuse to fly. Not only does this free me from having my privacy invaded due to institutionalized cowardice, it transfers the money I would have spent on the flight to a method of transport that hasn't (yet) been infected by the oath-breakers who are reducing our constitution to "just a piece of paper."
If you can manage it, this is the best choice to make, IMHO.
You're not keeping up. In today's society, it's "fuck them, as long as it isn't fuck me."
As Pastor Martin Niemöller rightly pointed out (here), eventually it will become "fuck me", but that requires looking ahead further than tomorrow, and again, today's society doesn't encourage that kind of thinking.
This is a nice, safe way for the authorities (in this case, Google... a self-created and -appointed vector for network search) to do the work and cast a safety net over the incompetent; they are absolutely guaranteed to go along. The only way they'd like it better is if it was done by an act of law.
I *do* want them pretty much everywhere, I just don't want them doing what they're doing now, which doesn't serve the community well (or mostly, at all.) In fact, ideally, I don't want them to have anything at all to do -- I want them to just "be there", part of the landscape, foiling actual crime by their very presence. As opposed to now, where they might show up a few minutes after the fact, giving rise to the aphorism "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
We have several problems: huge amounts of time and effort spent in what are very much the wrong pursuits; huge amounts of money spent on equipment that is ridiculous; layer upon layer of bad law; officers who feel entitled, combined with the unwillingness to act professionally when another officer is involved in wrongdoing; and not enough officers, by far.
Of course right now they are reactive. No one at all is watching for actual crime -- by which I mean violence and theft. Most of them are playing scan-the-plate and similar games, or at most, watching banks and not neighborhoods. That doesn't make it right or even appropriate. It's just the level they've sunk to. And yes, I do remember having a cop walking our block. It made quite a difference, I assure you. That same area today has no police presence... they're reactive, just as you say... and it isn't even remotely as safe as it was when I grew up.
Simple: Don't get married. Period. It's primarily a religious scam anyway. It isn't required for anything important you can't get some other way, other than the crocodile respect you get from people who believe in a magic sky fairy.
Look into power of attorney; contracts; provide insurance policies, wills, buy each other gifts of whatever - property, etc... hand over and/or keep receipts... then there's no doubt, ever, about who owns what, or where things go when time comes.
And as for kids... well, if you're inclined to have them, lard knows marriage won't protect them (or you) from anything. What it *does* do is opens the kids up to being participants in bitter property / rights fights. It won't save them from acrimony if someone cheats, or anything else, really. Marriage does, however, provide a goodly number of society's #1 most dangerous parasite, the lawyer, with guaranteed incomes.
Marriage is a dangerous institution hanging on because people aren't generally smart enough to look it in the face and see it for what it really is. A really nasty series of traps.
You don't need marriage to: own or share money and/or property. Procreate. Raise kids. Live together. Have sex. Not have much sex (pretty common in long term relationships, married or not.) Contribute to charity. Go to the movies. Leave each other money and/or property.
Marriage doesn't (any longer) give you a definite right to punish (or make many other choices for them... when they can drink, drug, be educated about sex) your kids; to expect sex; to expect or command obedience; etc. You may *think* you can do these things, but the courts will show you differently if push comes to shove.
Marriage closes doors by you voluntarily screwing yourself. For instance, the government has many immensely stupid laws, such as anti-polygamy laws. You can only marry one person, according to the feeble old fossils in government. But you *can* live with multiple partners, make a great life at it, and have no problems at all. That's just one example of how your freedom to control your relationships is actually severely diminished by the giving the state the "marriage handle" on you.
Were things actually sensible, the state would have no voice in "marriage" at all. It has no legitimate interest; all it does is screw things up for the citizens. You want a contract, that's something else -- and it should be something else.
'The only way for us to continue to have crime reduction is to start anticipating where crime is going to occur.'"
...is nonsense. What they need to do is put cops on the *street*, walking the neighborhoods; instead of driving cars around, playing with traffic. I am a *lot* more concerned about rape, assault and burglary and the opportunity for kids to play safely in their own yards than I am in the fact Joe Schlmoe was driving over the speed limit (yes, even quite a bit over the speed limit) or doesn't have the state revenue sticker glued to his license plate, or rolled through a stop sign. Likewise, if they'd stop interfering with people's choices to use recreational drugs, the black market would disappear, dealers would have nothing profitable to do, and the various police forces could concentrate on actual crime.
As long as the various police forces (and the legislatures that drive them) continue to misdirect a large proportion of their efforts, I'm not inclined to pay serious attention to any theory they might come up with about why and/or how crime can be reduced. So far, they seem to be quite focused on proving they don't know how to do their jobs worth a damn.
Both are marks of people who know how to use their time very well. Television is a wasteland of drivel; Facebook typically isn't much better, however it also adds privacy exposure and exclusionary concerns.
Television is probably one of two or three technologies that offered the most potential to advance our civilization; unfortunately, it never even came close to being used well, and finally devolved into primarily being used to consume fake news sources like Fox, "reality" shows, and various types of fiction. Today, owning a monitor to consume carefully selected streams and DVDs can make sense; but it is still a mark of good life management skills to avoid broadcast television and cable.
Would it? I don't think that's a given... I think it would entirely depend upon the programming.
The whole point here -- at least in my mind -- is that you can have what you want, rather than what some random person decides is an adequate response. So if what you want is "hard to get", you can certainly have it. If what you want is a whipping coupled with cigar burns on your ass, you should be able to have that, too. etc. Ad infinitum. Until (unless) true AI is involved, this should strictly be a matter of adding features, just like adding buttons or knobs to a stereo.
Yes, certainly you can. On anything that is a matter of subjective interpretation and personal experience. That's a rather severe fault in your worldview. For instance, Joe may be enamored of redheads; while John only responds to brunettes. Larry doesn't even raise an eyebrow unless they're blond. Joe is a leg man, goes nuts for stockings and garters, lingerie and artful makeup. John despises makeup, considers it superficial and unnecessary, but responds negatively to the sight of women in traditional men's clothing such as pants, ties, bowler hats, etc. Yet Larry thinks a woman clothed only in a man's t-shirt -- preferably his -- is the epitome of sexiness. See? These three fellows disagree, yet they're all three quite right; they definitely know what they like. And just as a footnote... there is no particular reason why any of those likes must have any relationship to what you like, though they might, as all are very common outlooks, though very much mutually exclusive on various levels.
What you're doing wrong here is trying to cast the world of human interaction in a black and white role of fact, event, outcome, and limit the list of valid FEO to those you personally have adopted as your worldview. Not trying to be mean here, but you're simply wrong. That's not how it works. That won't be how it works with robots, sexbots or roombas; nor is it how it works with a cat or a dog. I hope you figure that out sooner rather than later. Feel free to have the last word.
Personally, I've never considered love a one-sided affair.
Suppose you are in love, and your counterpart with you; and then they die. Does love evaporate instantly because the partner is gone? Of course not. That very much one-sided love will afflict what you do for quite some time, perhaps even the rest of your life, under those circumstances. And of course one can develop love for someone without that love being returned; love doesn't have to include a longer for a person, or even reciprocation: love can be many to one, one to many, one to one... families demonstrate this all the time, particularly with significantly different, troubled, or wayward offspring.
Finally, your perception of love won't be the same as the next person's; it's very limiting to view others in the world as only behaving as you would. If you do that, people are going to constantly surprise you (and if they figure out that your worldview is so crippled, there are those who would probably take advantage of you as well.)
...has been able to demonstrate engineering human -> non-human love since, oh lemme see, maybe the first 30 seconds I met her.
Of course humans will love robots that treat them accordingly while enhancing their quality of life. We've already seen outliers in love with their RealDolls; there, most of the interaction is being provided by the human, but mark my words, the net result will be the same.
When they finally manage to build a nominally acceptable sexbot, you'll see this all over -- because said sexbot will have to have those characteristics anyway.
It would probably take longer if people were nicer to one another and the whole population had access to a reasonable amount of affection and physical contact... because there'd be more competition for them; but you know what? People are really not very kind overall, and our laws, particularly WRT sex workers, are still pretty much in the dark ages.
Reading TFA, it strikes me that this might make an awesome power reactor -- there's provision for electrical capture already, and the thrust might be converted into mechanical energy. Plus, it's damn near a beryllium sphere... ok, a boron sphere, but hey.:^)
We spend the equivalent of a huge forest of money trees on USELESS aggression; bring those troops and ships home, destroy deployed equipment in place, sell it to the locals, or bring it home if practical, leave the military brought home employed for a strong standing defense, and (a) we'd be acting morally for the first time in decades and (b) the money spent on the standing army, now home, would go right back into our OWN economy, and (c) we'd have huge overall spending reductions we could apply to the debt and perhaps once again, someday, have money to spend for our actual benefit.
Our budget problems are 100% solvable. All you need to do is get the cowards out of congress. Somehow.
Bad? Without that ecosystem change, you wouldn't likely be here. Or if you were, your idea of a "good home" would be a cave high up in a cliff that had a very small diameter tunnel as the entrance. In the current ecosystem, you're top of the line. In a dinosaur ecosystem, you're lunch. Well, a snack, anyway.
But their reappearance in the Northern Atlantic is likely a climate-related issue.
Yes... or an ocean pollution-related (nutrient,toxin) issue. Or a river pollution-related (nutrient,toxin) issue. Or a passenger-on-a-hull issue. Or a natural (nutrient) issue. Or a current-alteration issue. Or a secondary species has brought them along, perhaps as a parasite or a host, or simply a passenger. Or a geological (heating, cooling, pressure, nutrient, toxin) issue. And I'm pretty sure a marine biologist could extend that list without a lot of effort.
Yessir, the re-appearance in the Northern Atlantic of this algae definitely allows us to immediately draw the following conclusion: The algae has re-appeared in the northern Atlantic.
Along with a whole host of other things done wrong; the fixed one-size-fits-all menu bar; the failure to accommodate refreshes on shares; the bounding forward on new versions of the OS without fixing the problems they left behind (like the launchd to console constant error messages); the window resize from bottom right (finally getting fixed in Lion); the "first click does nothing feature" ; the horrific mushy chiclet keyboards; the "slide-off-the-table" power supply lumps; the dashboard widgets you can't normally see; the current implementation of modal apps for Lion (that's just ridiculous); the unfixed and horribly buggy treeview API; many issues with the mac app store; similar, but different, issues with the IOS app store; the iPad has its own entire list of design problems... the fact is, Apple has left a trail of really bad design decisions behind them. I use these machines every day for a full workday, and then use them for home applications as well. We've got ipod, ipad, mini, air, macbook pro, and mac pro hardware. I think I have a pretty good handle on what works well (quite a bit) and where the company has fallen on its face.
As an Apple bitch, Final cut isn't even NEAR their biggest mistake. That would be the full screen modal "mode" in Lion. Easily the Dumbest Move Ever by Apple. Doesn't even work with multiple monitor setups. Unbelievably stupid.
Speaking as one of those persons that got started back in the 70's, the best casual starter that I am aware of today is python -- best to work with print statement oriented programming as you get extremely fast feedback on your code. Best also to have a mentor around.
Slashdot Mirror
After I saw top rated articles not make it to the front page, and crap-rated articles repeatedly get selected, I realized that the firehose is no more than a convenient fiction. It isn't worth spending time on; doesn't do anything useful.
I'm afraid you are completely and utterly incorrect: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
And RIGHT after that, it explains exactly what "reasonable" means in context: (1) probable cause, (2) supported by oath or affirmation, (3) a description of the things being searched for, and (4) a fucking WARRANT.
The 4th says "shall not". It doesn't say "except if we're too stupid to harden the cockpits" or "except when we've disarmed the populace in direct violation of the 2nd amendment" or "unless we want to."
It fucking well says "shall not." This clearly indicates that not only is this not an enumerated power, it can't be formed out of an "interpretation" of one of the enumerated powers, because, get ready, it's FUCKING FORBIDDEN. s-h-a-l-l n-o-t. How hard is that for you morons to understand? It means NO!
I refuse to fly. Not only does this free me from having my privacy invaded due to institutionalized cowardice, it transfers the money I would have spent on the flight to a method of transport that hasn't (yet) been infected by the oath-breakers who are reducing our constitution to "just a piece of paper."
If you can manage it, this is the best choice to make, IMHO.
You're not keeping up. In today's society, it's "fuck them, as long as it isn't fuck me."
As Pastor Martin Niemöller rightly pointed out (here), eventually it will become "fuck me", but that requires looking ahead further than tomorrow, and again, today's society doesn't encourage that kind of thinking.
This is a nice, safe way for the authorities (in this case, Google... a self-created and -appointed vector for network search) to do the work and cast a safety net over the incompetent; they are absolutely guaranteed to go along. The only way they'd like it better is if it was done by an act of law.
Seriously, when someone writes a summary, please don't use unexplained acronyms. You know we don't RTFA.
I *do* want them pretty much everywhere, I just don't want them doing what they're doing now, which doesn't serve the community well (or mostly, at all.) In fact, ideally, I don't want them to have anything at all to do -- I want them to just "be there", part of the landscape, foiling actual crime by their very presence. As opposed to now, where they might show up a few minutes after the fact, giving rise to the aphorism "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
We have several problems: huge amounts of time and effort spent in what are very much the wrong pursuits; huge amounts of money spent on equipment that is ridiculous; layer upon layer of bad law; officers who feel entitled, combined with the unwillingness to act professionally when another officer is involved in wrongdoing; and not enough officers, by far.
Of course right now they are reactive. No one at all is watching for actual crime -- by which I mean violence and theft. Most of them are playing scan-the-plate and similar games, or at most, watching banks and not neighborhoods. That doesn't make it right or even appropriate. It's just the level they've sunk to. And yes, I do remember having a cop walking our block. It made quite a difference, I assure you. That same area today has no police presence... they're reactive, just as you say... and it isn't even remotely as safe as it was when I grew up.
Simple: Don't get married. Period. It's primarily a religious scam anyway. It isn't required for anything important you can't get some other way, other than the crocodile respect you get from people who believe in a magic sky fairy.
Look into power of attorney; contracts; provide insurance policies, wills, buy each other gifts of whatever - property, etc... hand over and/or keep receipts... then there's no doubt, ever, about who owns what, or where things go when time comes.
And as for kids... well, if you're inclined to have them, lard knows marriage won't protect them (or you) from anything. What it *does* do is opens the kids up to being participants in bitter property / rights fights. It won't save them from acrimony if someone cheats, or anything else, really. Marriage does, however, provide a goodly number of society's #1 most dangerous parasite, the lawyer, with guaranteed incomes.
Marriage is a dangerous institution hanging on because people aren't generally smart enough to look it in the face and see it for what it really is. A really nasty series of traps.
You don't need marriage to: own or share money and/or property. Procreate. Raise kids. Live together. Have sex. Not have much sex (pretty common in long term relationships, married or not.) Contribute to charity. Go to the movies. Leave each other money and/or property.
Marriage doesn't (any longer) give you a definite right to punish (or make many other choices for them... when they can drink, drug, be educated about sex) your kids; to expect sex; to expect or command obedience; etc. You may *think* you can do these things, but the courts will show you differently if push comes to shove.
Marriage closes doors by you voluntarily screwing yourself. For instance, the government has many immensely stupid laws, such as anti-polygamy laws. You can only marry one person, according to the feeble old fossils in government. But you *can* live with multiple partners, make a great life at it, and have no problems at all. That's just one example of how your freedom to control your relationships is actually severely diminished by the giving the state the "marriage handle" on you.
Were things actually sensible, the state would have no voice in "marriage" at all. It has no legitimate interest; all it does is screw things up for the citizens. You want a contract, that's something else -- and it should be something else.
As long as the various police forces (and the legislatures that drive them) continue to misdirect a large proportion of their efforts, I'm not inclined to pay serious attention to any theory they might come up with about why and/or how crime can be reduced. So far, they seem to be quite focused on proving they don't know how to do their jobs worth a damn.
Both are marks of people who know how to use their time very well. Television is a wasteland of drivel; Facebook typically isn't much better, however it also adds privacy exposure and exclusionary concerns.
Television is probably one of two or three technologies that offered the most potential to advance our civilization; unfortunately, it never even came close to being used well, and finally devolved into primarily being used to consume fake news sources like Fox, "reality" shows, and various types of fiction. Today, owning a monitor to consume carefully selected streams and DVDs can make sense; but it is still a mark of good life management skills to avoid broadcast television and cable.
Would it? I don't think that's a given... I think it would entirely depend upon the programming.
The whole point here -- at least in my mind -- is that you can have what you want, rather than what some random person decides is an adequate response. So if what you want is "hard to get", you can certainly have it. If what you want is a whipping coupled with cigar burns on your ass, you should be able to have that, too. etc. Ad infinitum. Until (unless) true AI is involved, this should strictly be a matter of adding features, just like adding buttons or knobs to a stereo.
Yes, certainly you can. On anything that is a matter of subjective interpretation and personal experience. That's a rather severe fault in your worldview. For instance, Joe may be enamored of redheads; while John only responds to brunettes. Larry doesn't even raise an eyebrow unless they're blond. Joe is a leg man, goes nuts for stockings and garters, lingerie and artful makeup. John despises makeup, considers it superficial and unnecessary, but responds negatively to the sight of women in traditional men's clothing such as pants, ties, bowler hats, etc. Yet Larry thinks a woman clothed only in a man's t-shirt -- preferably his -- is the epitome of sexiness. See? These three fellows disagree, yet they're all three quite right; they definitely know what they like. And just as a footnote... there is no particular reason why any of those likes must have any relationship to what you like, though they might, as all are very common outlooks, though very much mutually exclusive on various levels.
What you're doing wrong here is trying to cast the world of human interaction in a black and white role of fact, event, outcome, and limit the list of valid FEO to those you personally have adopted as your worldview. Not trying to be mean here, but you're simply wrong. That's not how it works. That won't be how it works with robots, sexbots or roombas; nor is it how it works with a cat or a dog. I hope you figure that out sooner rather than later. Feel free to have the last word.
In fact, you could have a whole harem, if you'd like a little variety.
My plan is just to live together in tin.
Suppose you are in love, and your counterpart with you; and then they die. Does love evaporate instantly because the partner is gone? Of course not. That very much one-sided love will afflict what you do for quite some time, perhaps even the rest of your life, under those circumstances. And of course one can develop love for someone without that love being returned; love doesn't have to include a longer for a person, or even reciprocation: love can be many to one, one to many, one to one... families demonstrate this all the time, particularly with significantly different, troubled, or wayward offspring.
Finally, your perception of love won't be the same as the next person's; it's very limiting to view others in the world as only behaving as you would. If you do that, people are going to constantly surprise you (and if they figure out that your worldview is so crippled, there are those who would probably take advantage of you as well.)
Of course humans will love robots that treat them accordingly while enhancing their quality of life. We've already seen outliers in love with their RealDolls; there, most of the interaction is being provided by the human, but mark my words, the net result will be the same.
When they finally manage to build a nominally acceptable sexbot, you'll see this all over -- because said sexbot will have to have those characteristics anyway.
It would probably take longer if people were nicer to one another and the whole population had access to a reasonable amount of affection and physical contact... because there'd be more competition for them; but you know what? People are really not very kind overall, and our laws, particularly WRT sex workers, are still pretty much in the dark ages.
Reading TFA, it strikes me that this might make an awesome power reactor -- there's provision for electrical capture already, and the thrust might be converted into mechanical energy. Plus, it's damn near a beryllium sphere... ok, a boron sphere, but hey. :^)
We spend the equivalent of a huge forest of money trees on USELESS aggression; bring those troops and ships home, destroy deployed equipment in place, sell it to the locals, or bring it home if practical, leave the military brought home employed for a strong standing defense, and (a) we'd be acting morally for the first time in decades and (b) the money spent on the standing army, now home, would go right back into our OWN economy, and (c) we'd have huge overall spending reductions we could apply to the debt and perhaps once again, someday, have money to spend for our actual benefit.
Our budget problems are 100% solvable. All you need to do is get the cowards out of congress. Somehow.
Bad? Without that ecosystem change, you wouldn't likely be here. Or if you were, your idea of a "good home" would be a cave high up in a cliff that had a very small diameter tunnel as the entrance. In the current ecosystem, you're top of the line. In a dinosaur ecosystem, you're lunch. Well, a snack, anyway.
Yes... or an ocean pollution-related (nutrient,toxin) issue. Or a river pollution-related (nutrient,toxin) issue. Or a passenger-on-a-hull issue. Or a natural (nutrient) issue. Or a current-alteration issue. Or a secondary species has brought them along, perhaps as a parasite or a host, or simply a passenger. Or a geological (heating, cooling, pressure, nutrient, toxin) issue. And I'm pretty sure a marine biologist could extend that list without a lot of effort.
Yessir, the re-appearance in the Northern Atlantic of this algae definitely allows us to immediately draw the following conclusion: The algae has re-appeared in the northern Atlantic.
No. No space for mutant frogs. Hop away, now.
No, that was Steve Jobs.
Along with a whole host of other things done wrong; the fixed one-size-fits-all menu bar; the failure to accommodate refreshes on shares; the bounding forward on new versions of the OS without fixing the problems they left behind (like the launchd to console constant error messages); the window resize from bottom right (finally getting fixed in Lion); the "first click does nothing feature" ; the horrific mushy chiclet keyboards; the "slide-off-the-table" power supply lumps; the dashboard widgets you can't normally see; the current implementation of modal apps for Lion (that's just ridiculous); the unfixed and horribly buggy treeview API; many issues with the mac app store; similar, but different, issues with the IOS app store; the iPad has its own entire list of design problems... the fact is, Apple has left a trail of really bad design decisions behind them. I use these machines every day for a full workday, and then use them for home applications as well. We've got ipod, ipad, mini, air, macbook pro, and mac pro hardware. I think I have a pretty good handle on what works well (quite a bit) and where the company has fallen on its face.
Fixed that for you
As an Apple bitch, Final cut isn't even NEAR their biggest mistake. That would be the full screen modal "mode" in Lion. Easily the Dumbest Move Ever by Apple. Doesn't even work with multiple monitor setups. Unbelievably stupid.
Speaking as one of those persons that got started back in the 70's, the best casual starter that I am aware of today is python -- best to work with print statement oriented programming as you get extremely fast feedback on your code. Best also to have a mentor around.
Sounds like civilized behavior to me, frankly. No more than that.