RETURN PERSON ID where gender is a male AND between 17-35 AND shops at Islamic stores AND has expired visa AND received large cash transfers from an Islamic country AND bought a one-way ticket on an airplane AND is on the same flight as others of that class.
I don't know about the U.S., but at least in the UK polls regularly show a disturbing level of support for Islamist values among the immigrant community.
It's like Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland when ethic conflict broke out in the 1970s.
Prior to the beginning of "The Troubles", in the sixties, most nationalists weren't interested in Irish or specifically Gaelic culture. It was regarded as fairly quaint and outdated, and even embarrassing. In the sixties, everyone wanted to be seen as modern. This all changed when an ethnic war with the more "british" unionist population broke out.
The Irish nationalists, en masse, embraced "Irish Culture". The Irish language, folk music, old celtic art, stories, etc, etc. Things that most people in the republic wouldn't be caught dead at anymore. There was a whole wave of this that emerged when major ethnic conflict broke out.
I think the current resurgence of "Islamic values" is a similar phenomena. People perceive there to be an ethnic conflict, and in many ways, there is one. As such, they try, perhaps subconsciously, to bond closer to their own group for safety, and to reinforce that group, and distinguish it from others, by regressing to a fairly exaggerated, stereotyped and admittedly romanticized version of that groups culture. A pity that in this case, the culture being appealed to is fairly chauvinist and radical.
I think it's even happening in the United States. Americans too, I think, are regressing back to some kind of romanticized American ideal: Ultra patriotic, Christian and Anglo-Saxon. Apparently, there has been a 40% increase in hate groups in the US since September 11th 2001, and there's that recent spate of noose incidents. Not to mention all the intelligent design, church and state, and immigration debates taking place there. I'd say these are all symptoms of Americans collectively regressing into a perceived idealized culture.
Better be careful though. When the Northern Ireland nationalists began to "Celtifiy", there was tremendous pressure for people perceived to be a part of that group to conform. If you were perceived as being patriotic enough, especially with regard to supporting the "nationalist cause". If you weren't seen to be a supporter of a 32 county Ireland, or had the audacity to associate with unionist, or protestant friends, you could find yourself being called upon by local IRA representatives. The line between cultural regression and fascism was a thin one.
What is it with Americans and Acronyms? Is it absolutely necessary for nigh every single act, invention, process or term to have an acronym, and furthermore, for that acronym to become its de facto name?
Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?
Most university researchers probably don't have a problem.
I'm a university researcher and I have a problem.
About 70% percent of the papers I go looking for are under lock and key, with the key being upwards $30 per paper. This is just for an electronic, windows only, pdf file, which I download from an automated site. Precisely why papers cost this much is beyond me, as most are poorly written and not very useful. You're essentially playing lucky dip, looking for that paper that will be of use to you. The difference is that you're paying $30 a pop.
Strictly speaking, I had a problem. I have in fact simply given up on restricted content, and if my university doesn't have a subscription to a journal, and I see a "give us money" splash page, I just regard the paper as "lost" or "unavailable" and move on. It's not really much of an impediment to research, though there are drawbacks. The drawbacks are however significantly less that blowing $300 in one day on mostly useless pdf files.
Basically, if I can't get my hands on your paper, I'm not citing it, and frankly that's your problem, not mine. If people insist on publishing in restricted journals, they'll have to accept the consequences. In this digital age, online pay per view content may as well not exist.
that is, sex with a real child, who is biologically sexually immature. you can bet your archeologist's tenured chair that our ancestors thousands of years ago were bashing the heads of men (and women) who preyed on the prepubescent
You'll lose your bet.
There is no practice so vile, no institution so abhorrent, no culture so depraved that it was not practiced openly at some point in history, somewhere on the earth. In fact, most practices that people cannot even fathom there being support for, were once regarded as laudable virtues in some societies. Societies our modern one is descended from. Mass murder, slavery, blood sacrifice, racism, sexism, ephebophilia, and yes, even pedophilia, were all at one point socially acceptable and even encouraged.
You can't put limits on the human capacity for depravity. Or societies' for that matter.
Say what you want about the U.S., but we don't outlaw 'hate speech' here. We have outlawed bomb-making instructions since 1997
Alright I will. In the US, you outlaw chemical formulae, but allow people to call for "infidels" to be burned at the stake. Do you regard this as a laudable state of affairs?
My personal believe is that every person should work and live as openly as practically possible.
Whatever happened to "Trust No One"? Has the X-Files truly been purged from the post 9-11 mind? Wither Richelieu and his six lines in the hand of an honest man. Is it that people have become so paranoid and neurotic that they feel an overwhelming desire to prove their conformity? Are people just blind, or are they consciously trying to prove they have nothing to hide.
You need to get blackmailed. It'll work wonders for your world view.
Step 3: Ask to see the signed model release that allows your image to be published.
Doesn't work like that. If it did, newspapers would need written permission from celebrities to publish their snapshots. Technically, your friends are "reporting the news" so they don't need your written permission.
ISPs, Power companies, major Airlines, Defense contractors, Major automobile manufacturers, etc, etc... These are all officially private companies, and indeed, they do have a large degree of independence. But in reality, they are off the books branches of government, who carry out the will of whoever is in power. Phone tapping, passenger screening, weapons sales. Government gives big contracts and favors, and companies need to keep them sweet. Hence, mass compliance among big business to dubious and even outright illegal Government requests.
You want an analogy? Think of the government as Al Swearengen in the first series of Deadwood. He runs the town, and everyone knows it. He's in every shady deal, but also in some sense organises the town. Big business, is like Wu, the top man in the Chinese camp. Wu conducts his own affairs and business, largely without Swearengen caring very much.
Wu needs Swearengen's continued support to keep operating in the camp, and so must keep him sweet. When Wu has problems, he takes his grievances to Swearengen, who will try to sort them out if it suits him. And often, when Swearengen needs a dirty job done, he calls on Wu services, e.g. body disposal. The two are largely out of each others hair, and on the surface, there would seem little connection. However, the two are "hang-dai" in Wu's own words, i.e. partners and comrades in all manner of shady dealing.
I'm really getting tired of people who don't know what they're talking about making a big issue of 1080i vs. 1080p when it comes to a source device.....
It would appear sir, that it is you who does not understand the issues here.
1080i means the signal is interlaced. What is interlacing? Put briefly; back in the 1930's, you simply could not transmit as much data to a television back in those days. You were very limited in what you could transmit reliably given the transmitters, receivers, and noisy equipment of the day. In modern language, we might say that bandwidth was very limited for television.
Like all forms of moving pictures, television requires a fairly high framerate to give the illusion of a continuously moving images from what is just a sequence of still frames. But because of the restricted bandwidth, more frames per second means your frames must have less resolution. So the 1930s engineers were seemingly at an impasse.
Enter interlacing. Instead of transmitting a full ~25 frames every second, you transmit ~25 half frames every second. One one frame you draw the odd numbered lines of pixels, and on the next you draw the even lines, and so on. Because CRT televisions used glowing phosphor which had a "fade" out time, the two frames would meld into one without the viewer noticing. It was a good solution given the technology of the day, and served the industry well for many years.
So 1080i signals are inherently of a much, much lower quality than either 1080p signals, or even 720p signals. This is because they transmit half frames, and try as you might you're never, ever going to be able to mesh those frames into one another seamlessly. 1080i is already a lossy signal, so saying that it converts "losslessly" to 1080p is equivalent to saying that a 320x240 signal can be scaled "losslessly" to a 640x480 signal. It's true, but your avoiding the main issue.
Yes, given the same bandwidth, a 1080i signal can transmit just as much data as a 1080p signal. So can any signal for that matter, regardless of format. But the reality is, 99.999% of 1080i signals will be transmitting at the same framerate as their 1080p equivalents, i.e. the 1080i signal will be transmitting less data and hence will be a lower quality one. Even if it transmits the same data, the signal will still have been put through an interlacing shredder, and will not be worth the money you're paying for it.
We're now in the year 2007. Simply put, bandwidth is for nothing. On top of that, our newer televisions don't use CRTs anymore, meaning that interlacing tends to show up quite noticeably, making the picture look awful. So why then do we have 1080i as a HD option?.....
Hell if I know.
Interlacing was a smart idea in the 1930's. In 2007, with digital framebuffers, LCD TVs, and high quality cabling, interlacing is simply an embarrassment. 1080i is simply a high resolution embarrassment.
...they generally get banned, and then they go post their whines here on Slashdot.
With Slashdot becoming one of the most public places where Wikipedia's dirty laundry is put on display, I'll bet this is what a lot of Wiki die hards would like everyone to think. The fact remains that the vast majority of these so called "whines" are legitimate complaints about the current Wikipedia administration that are being largely ignored on that site.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you..."
Can you please e-mail her and tell her to hop off because she's ruining her son's life? thx
On a slightly more serious note, it's sad how some people seem to think that their parents exist solely for their own benefit. I think most people will at at times be embarrassed by their parents. However one often sees someone basically demanding that their parent change his or her lifestyle to suit their child's insecurities, sense of propriety, feelings, etc, etc. Often the child is a fully fledged adult at the time.
It seems to be a general rule in society that parents must sacrifice themselves on an altar for their children. It seems that becoming anything less than a completely devoted man servant to your offspring is a moral wrong. I'm of the opinion that becoming a parent does not oblige you to devote 100% of your (free) time to your children, and that telling your clinging offspring every now and again to push off because you're busy with your own life, will be a benefit to them in the long run.
All that said, if my parents ever do get a social networking account, I will publicly disown them.
Actually, these guys seem to have genuinely invented the work they hold the patents for, though they were working for the University of Calgary at the time
And if by invented you mean scribbled out a few algorithms, tested them on a simulator and published a paper or two on it, then yes, they did invent the techniques.
However, if by invented you mean designed and built prototypes, tested them in the real world, integrated them into existing products and finally brought them to market, then no, they did not in fact invent anything.
Have you ever tried any of that on a modern, post '00, vehicle. Components are so specialised, manufacturer specific and awkwardly placed that only the changing of the tire can be regarded as a fairly doable task anymore. Anything else, anything, will require a trip to some specialised automobile shop, a fairly long chat with a sales assistant, and the purchase of at least three items, "just in case" the others don't fit. Even a tire change can be an ordeal with some cars essentially requiring a power tool to remove their bolts.
I'd like to be able to do minor maintenance on a car, but it isn't straightforward DIY anymore, if it ever was. It takes a lot of preparation, time and effort, and as fascinating as it might be, time is one commodity many of us lack nowadays. On top of that, the local garageman can be fairly reasonably priced.
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right?
Capitalism, as the modern practice of the term defines it, is all about rich people taking as little risk as possible, and squeezing others as hard as they possibly can, in order to make exorbitant amounts of money. Capitalists hate treating employees as anything other than slightly articulate monkeys who exists for one purpose only, to be a part of the labor pool. They don't see workers as "real" human beings, much less other businessmen.
Linda, OTOH, had 14 kids, 13 of which are still alive. She trumps me in the evolution game 13 to 2.
I'm almost certain that this can be shown to be a fallacy. Natural selection is an ongoing process. If you're a one trick pony, in this case, lots of children, then you have many offspring, but they all are more likely to be "specialists" not "generalists", and will be less adaptable.
Any way I note that a) Linda's large family is less likely to be down to genetic factors than it is to social or cultural factors. and b)
It is possible that I have a lot of kids in Asia I don't know about
Linda's "mass production" strategy may not in fact be as intensive as your own,
It might go against my USian belief in free speech, but I'd have a hard time arguing against this law if its merely placing blogs & websites under the same scrutiny as other publications.
What scrutiny!?
What possible scrutiny or regulation is currently in place for any form of printed media? I believe in the United States is is not only a legal, but a constitutional right, to publish absolutely anything in the form of a book or pamphlet(... crimen exceptum excluded). Journalists can undertake actions that would constitute outright stalking and blatant slander in most other situations. Any yahoo can scribe just about any brain fart he expels onto paper and distribute it and is more than free to do so.
Europe is different. In some cases, a lot different, but newspapers and book publishers are largely also allowed to do want they want over here.
Television and movies are the, but seeing as how these are largely controlled by not-so-private semi state groups, they are a clear exception. I'm guessing blogs and the internet are in question because they "blur the line" between video media and printed media (because they're read on a "TV"). Lack of self censorship is probably also a factor here.
From the dawn of history, music has always been a service, and never a good. I don't see why the existence of ultra rich musicians should be seen as anything other than an anomaly.
Slashdot Mirror
0 rows returned
FBI Agent: "Damn! Now what?
RETURN PERSON ID where RELIGION='Islam'
Prior to the beginning of "The Troubles", in the sixties, most nationalists weren't interested in Irish or specifically Gaelic culture. It was regarded as fairly quaint and outdated, and even embarrassing. In the sixties, everyone wanted to be seen as modern. This all changed when an ethnic war with the more "british" unionist population broke out.
The Irish nationalists, en masse, embraced "Irish Culture". The Irish language, folk music, old celtic art, stories, etc, etc. Things that most people in the republic wouldn't be caught dead at anymore. There was a whole wave of this that emerged when major ethnic conflict broke out.
I think the current resurgence of "Islamic values" is a similar phenomena. People perceive there to be an ethnic conflict, and in many ways, there is one. As such, they try, perhaps subconsciously, to bond closer to their own group for safety, and to reinforce that group, and distinguish it from others, by regressing to a fairly exaggerated, stereotyped and admittedly romanticized version of that groups culture. A pity that in this case, the culture being appealed to is fairly chauvinist and radical.
I think it's even happening in the United States. Americans too, I think, are regressing back to some kind of romanticized American ideal: Ultra patriotic, Christian and Anglo-Saxon. Apparently, there has been a 40% increase in hate groups in the US since September 11th 2001, and there's that recent spate of noose incidents. Not to mention all the intelligent design, church and state, and immigration debates taking place there. I'd say these are all symptoms of Americans collectively regressing into a perceived idealized culture.
Better be careful though. When the Northern Ireland nationalists began to "Celtifiy", there was tremendous pressure for people perceived to be a part of that group to conform. If you were perceived as being patriotic enough, especially with regard to supporting the "nationalist cause". If you weren't seen to be a supporter of a 32 county Ireland, or had the audacity to associate with unionist, or protestant friends, you could find yourself being called upon by local IRA representatives. The line between cultural regression and fascism was a thin one.
What is it with Americans and Acronyms? Is it absolutely necessary for nigh every single act, invention, process or term to have an acronym, and furthermore, for that acronym to become its de facto name?
Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?
Screw that! It's the Chimera we should be worried about!
About 70% percent of the papers I go looking for are under lock and key, with the key being upwards $30 per paper. This is just for an electronic, windows only, pdf file, which I download from an automated site. Precisely why papers cost this much is beyond me, as most are poorly written and not very useful. You're essentially playing lucky dip, looking for that paper that will be of use to you. The difference is that you're paying $30 a pop.
Strictly speaking, I had a problem. I have in fact simply given up on restricted content, and if my university doesn't have a subscription to a journal, and I see a "give us money" splash page, I just regard the paper as "lost" or "unavailable" and move on. It's not really much of an impediment to research, though there are drawbacks. The drawbacks are however significantly less that blowing $300 in one day on mostly useless pdf files.
Basically, if I can't get my hands on your paper, I'm not citing it, and frankly that's your problem, not mine. If people insist on publishing in restricted journals, they'll have to accept the consequences. In this digital age, online pay per view content may as well not exist.
You'll lose your bet.
There is no practice so vile, no institution so abhorrent, no culture so depraved that it was not practiced openly at some point in history, somewhere on the earth. In fact, most practices that people cannot even fathom there being support for, were once regarded as laudable virtues in some societies. Societies our modern one is descended from. Mass murder, slavery, blood sacrifice, racism, sexism, ephebophilia, and yes, even pedophilia, were all at one point socially acceptable and even encouraged.
You can't put limits on the human capacity for depravity. Or societies' for that matter.
Alright I will. In the US, you outlaw chemical formulae, but allow people to call for "infidels" to be burned at the stake. Do you regard this as a laudable state of affairs?
You need to get blackmailed. It'll work wonders for your world view.
Doesn't work like that. If it did, newspapers would need written permission from celebrities to publish their snapshots. Technically, your friends are "reporting the news" so they don't need your written permission.
Yes, and what other people post about you also become public. Bear that in mind.
ISPs, Power companies, major Airlines, Defense contractors, Major automobile manufacturers, etc, etc... These are all officially private companies, and indeed, they do have a large degree of independence. But in reality, they are off the books branches of government, who carry out the will of whoever is in power. Phone tapping, passenger screening, weapons sales. Government gives big contracts and favors, and companies need to keep them sweet. Hence, mass compliance among big business to dubious and even outright illegal Government requests.
You want an analogy? Think of the government as Al Swearengen in the first series of Deadwood. He runs the town, and everyone knows it. He's in every shady deal, but also in some sense organises the town. Big business, is like Wu, the top man in the Chinese camp. Wu conducts his own affairs and business, largely without Swearengen caring very much.
Wu needs Swearengen's continued support to keep operating in the camp, and so must keep him sweet. When Wu has problems, he takes his grievances to Swearengen, who will try to sort them out if it suits him. And often, when Swearengen needs a dirty job done, he calls on Wu services, e.g. body disposal. The two are largely out of each others hair, and on the surface, there would seem little connection. However, the two are "hang-dai" in Wu's own words, i.e. partners and comrades in all manner of shady dealing.
So remember. Big Business. Government. Hang-dai.
It would appear sir, that it is you who does not understand the issues here.
1080i means the signal is interlaced. What is interlacing? Put briefly; back in the 1930's, you simply could not transmit as much data to a television back in those days. You were very limited in what you could transmit reliably given the transmitters, receivers, and noisy equipment of the day. In modern language, we might say that bandwidth was very limited for television.
Like all forms of moving pictures, television requires a fairly high framerate to give the illusion of a continuously moving images from what is just a sequence of still frames. But because of the restricted bandwidth, more frames per second means your frames must have less resolution. So the 1930s engineers were seemingly at an impasse.
Enter interlacing. Instead of transmitting a full ~25 frames every second, you transmit ~25 half frames every second. One one frame you draw the odd numbered lines of pixels, and on the next you draw the even lines, and so on. Because CRT televisions used glowing phosphor which had a "fade" out time, the two frames would meld into one without the viewer noticing. It was a good solution given the technology of the day, and served the industry well for many years.
So 1080i signals are inherently of a much, much lower quality than either 1080p signals, or even 720p signals. This is because they transmit half frames, and try as you might you're never, ever going to be able to mesh those frames into one another seamlessly. 1080i is already a lossy signal, so saying that it converts "losslessly" to 1080p is equivalent to saying that a 320x240 signal can be scaled "losslessly" to a 640x480 signal. It's true, but your avoiding the main issue.
Yes, given the same bandwidth, a 1080i signal can transmit just as much data as a 1080p signal. So can any signal for that matter, regardless of format. But the reality is, 99.999% of 1080i signals will be transmitting at the same framerate as their 1080p equivalents, i.e. the 1080i signal will be transmitting less data and hence will be a lower quality one. Even if it transmits the same data, the signal will still have been put through an interlacing shredder, and will not be worth the money you're paying for it.
We're now in the year 2007. Simply put, bandwidth is for nothing. On top of that, our newer televisions don't use CRTs anymore, meaning that interlacing tends to show up quite noticeably, making the picture look awful. So why then do we have 1080i as a HD option?
Hell if I know.
Interlacing was a smart idea in the 1930's. In 2007, with digital framebuffers, LCD TVs, and high quality cabling, interlacing is simply an embarrassment. 1080i is simply a high resolution embarrassment.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you..."
It seems to be a general rule in society that parents must sacrifice themselves on an altar for their children. It seems that becoming anything less than a completely devoted man servant to your offspring is a moral wrong. I'm of the opinion that becoming a parent does not oblige you to devote 100% of your (free) time to your children, and that telling your clinging offspring every now and again to push off because you're busy with your own life, will be a benefit to them in the long run.
All that said, if my parents ever do get a social networking account, I will publicly disown them.
However, if by invented you mean designed and built prototypes, tested them in the real world, integrated them into existing products and finally brought them to market, then no, they did not in fact invent anything.
If they could read your mind, they would. In lieu of that, they'll always go for the next best thing.
Have you ever tried any of that on a modern, post '00, vehicle. Components are so specialised, manufacturer specific and awkwardly placed that only the changing of the tire can be regarded as a fairly doable task anymore. Anything else, anything, will require a trip to some specialised automobile shop, a fairly long chat with a sales assistant, and the purchase of at least three items, "just in case" the others don't fit. Even a tire change can be an ordeal with some cars essentially requiring a power tool to remove their bolts.
I'd like to be able to do minor maintenance on a car, but it isn't straightforward DIY anymore, if it ever was. It takes a lot of preparation, time and effort, and as fascinating as it might be, time is one commodity many of us lack nowadays. On top of that, the local garageman can be fairly reasonably priced.
Any way I note that
a) Linda's large family is less likely to be down to genetic factors than it is to social or cultural factors. and
b)Linda's "mass production" strategy may not in fact be as intensive as your own,
What scrutiny!?
What possible scrutiny or regulation is currently in place for any form of printed media? I believe in the United States is is not only a legal, but a constitutional right, to publish absolutely anything in the form of a book or pamphlet(... crimen exceptum excluded). Journalists can undertake actions that would constitute outright stalking and blatant slander in most other situations. Any yahoo can scribe just about any brain fart he expels onto paper and distribute it and is more than free to do so.
Europe is different. In some cases, a lot different, but newspapers and book publishers are largely also allowed to do want they want over here.
Television and movies are the, but seeing as how these are largely controlled by not-so-private semi state groups, they are a clear exception. I'm guessing blogs and the internet are in question because they "blur the line" between video media and printed media (because they're read on a "TV"). Lack of self censorship is probably also a factor here.
From the dawn of history, music has always been a service, and never a good. I don't see why the existence of ultra rich musicians should be seen as anything other than an anomaly.