An entire school full of bigots. Teachers and students and administration. You can't get shit like this outside of the South. My wife lived in Mobile, AL for most of her highschool years (she's originally from Kansas). Says it was like living on another planter, and not a fun one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/ns/technology_and_science-security/ -------------------- The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the agency argues that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including Net neutrality rules.
Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer... commission authority."
With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision to the Supreme Court.
But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.
The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommuniciations service. And that, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies, he noted.
"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."
First of all, I apologize that it took me so long to reply, and that my reply is so long. Rules of engagement vary with the specific mission, the unit, the combat theater, and even the year. However, the concept of PID (positive identification of threat) is always crucial. PID is the sine qua non of any ROE.
Double-tap is against ROE, and it always will be, because a "double-tap" consists of neutralizing a threat and then shooting the target again for 'good measure' even when it is no longer a threat. If it's not a threat, you're not allowed to shoot it, even if it WAS a threat earlier. If it's no longer a threat, then you don't have PID. If you don't have PID, you mustn't shoot it, even if ordered to, unless you want to get caught under a pissing contest between your Chain of Command and the ROE of your theater.
Double-tap is not to be confused with a controlled pair. Example: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot twice - bang, bang - and target goes down. That's a controlled pair. We use controlled pairs because the M4, with its shorter barrel (4" shorter than the M16) and collapsible buttstock, has a tendency to ice-pick the target, rather than giving the tumbling we need in order to make a nice hole. However, two holes in close proximity to one another can really mess up your day. Plus there are those blended-metal rounds that we're not allowed to use anymore.:( But I digress.
Example of double-tap: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot (controlled pair, whatever, doesn't matter). Target goes down. Target is no longer a threat; incapacitation, surrender, death, doesn't really matter. Target is not a threat AND YET some bozo shoots the target a second time because that's what people do in the movies. BAD.
Whether the foe is wounded or not is irrelevant. The question is, do you (the good guy) still have PID (positive identification of a threat/target)? If the guy is no longer a threat, he's not a valid target. It gets more complicated when you're talking about traffic control points, vehicles, etc. but here we're talking primarily about a bunch of guys who are walking down the road, minding their own business, with their weapons (if that's what they are) slung, NOT in their hands. They weren't a threat to begin with. Therefore, the gunner didn't have PID. Therefore, he shouldn't have even asked for permission to fire, because he didn't have PID. His Higher gave him permission to engage (G-d knows why), and from that point on, it was the responsibility of the gunner to kill the targets, period. He had permission (which he shouldn't have, but whatever); from that point on, KILL THEM. Don't half-ass the job and then come back to finish the job when they don't pose any kind of threat.
The worst thing you can do is engage a non-threat, half-ass the job, engage a non-threat AGAIN, and finally engage the non-threat a third time while someone is ferrying the injured to hospital. I know it didn't have a red cross on the side but it walked, talked, quacked like an ambulance. The gunner knew exactly what was going on -- the injured were being taken to get medical attention -- and he engaged the vehicle anyway.
Engaging a vehicle with 30mm cannon fire is fine: 30mm is anti-materiel, and a vehicle counts as materiel. Engaging a group of men with 30mm cannon fire because they MIGHT have weapons slung across their shoulders? I'm not sure whose bright idea that was.
Last week there were 40 shootings in Chicago despite the fact that handguns are illegal in Chicago. This seems to me to be a good indication that gun control laws like those that Chicago has do not work.
That's because you can drive to Cicero (a few miles away) and buy a gun. Now, if you can't drive anywhere within a 500 mile radius and buy a gun, that's an entirely different matter.
It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.
I hope the spotters have really accurate watches and are good at triangulation...
Awesome, now we just need to align our culture to the biological cues of our bodies.
Will you be the first to write Congress saying it should be legal for an 11 year old girl to get married and have kids? Because until that happens, "kids" will have premarital sex.
The result was statistically irrelevant to their findings but it's hard to shake a niggling anecdotal doubt in his mind, theirs, and mine, that maybe the research and the tumour were connected.
Well, better get shakin', because they're not related.
Look: Humans are naturally bad at these kinds of analyses because of our over-active pattern detectors. You're seeing a pattern that isn't there. Step back, make that realization, and you're free.
Slashdot Mirror
Cough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(TNG_episode)
*planet, not planter.
Damn you fingers!
Ahem:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/
An entire school full of bigots. Teachers and students and administration. You can't get shit like this outside of the South. My wife lived in Mobile, AL for most of her highschool years (she's originally from Kansas). Says it was like living on another planter, and not a fun one.
The helicopters were at a distance of more than twice the effective range of an RPG. Sorry, not good enough.
Hmmm, this sounds like a job for DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS!
*runs and hides*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/ns/technology_and_science-security/
--------------------
The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the agency argues that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including Net neutrality rules.
Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer ... commission authority."
With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision to the Supreme Court.
But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.
The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommuniciations service. And that, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies, he noted.
"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."
Oh Randy, you do slay me.
Reposting Mondorescue's post:
------------------
First of all, I apologize that it took me so long to reply, and that my reply is so long.
Rules of engagement vary with the specific mission, the unit, the combat theater, and even the year. However, the concept of PID (positive identification of threat) is always crucial. PID is the sine qua non of any ROE.
Double-tap is against ROE, and it always will be, because a "double-tap" consists of neutralizing a threat and then shooting the target again for 'good measure' even when it is no longer a threat. If it's not a threat, you're not allowed to shoot it, even if it WAS a threat earlier. If it's no longer a threat, then you don't have PID. If you don't have PID, you mustn't shoot it, even if ordered to, unless you want to get caught under a pissing contest between your Chain of Command and the ROE of your theater.
Double-tap is not to be confused with a controlled pair. Example: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot twice - bang, bang - and target goes down. That's a controlled pair. We use controlled pairs because the M4, with its shorter barrel (4" shorter than the M16) and collapsible buttstock, has a tendency to ice-pick the target, rather than giving the tumbling we need in order to make a nice hole. However, two holes in close proximity to one another can really mess up your day. Plus there are those blended-metal rounds that we're not allowed to use anymore. :( But I digress.
Example of double-tap: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot (controlled pair, whatever, doesn't matter). Target goes down. Target is no longer a threat; incapacitation, surrender, death, doesn't really matter. Target is not a threat AND YET some bozo shoots the target a second time because that's what people do in the movies. BAD.
Whether the foe is wounded or not is irrelevant. The question is, do you (the good guy) still have PID (positive identification of a threat/target)? If the guy is no longer a threat, he's not a valid target. It gets more complicated when you're talking about traffic control points, vehicles, etc. but here we're talking primarily about a bunch of guys who are walking down the road, minding their own business, with their weapons (if that's what they are) slung, NOT in their hands. They weren't a threat to begin with. Therefore, the gunner didn't have PID. Therefore, he shouldn't have even asked for permission to fire, because he didn't have PID. His Higher gave him permission to engage (G-d knows why), and from that point on, it was the responsibility of the gunner to kill the targets, period. He had permission (which he shouldn't have, but whatever); from that point on, KILL THEM. Don't half-ass the job and then come back to finish the job when they don't pose any kind of threat.
The worst thing you can do is engage a non-threat, half-ass the job, engage a non-threat AGAIN, and finally engage the non-threat a third time while someone is ferrying the injured to hospital. I know it didn't have a red cross on the side but it walked, talked, quacked like an ambulance. The gunner knew exactly what was going on -- the injured were being taken to get medical attention -- and he engaged the vehicle anyway.
Engaging a vehicle with 30mm cannon fire is fine: 30mm is anti-materiel, and a vehicle counts as materiel. Engaging a group of men with 30mm cannon fire because they MIGHT have weapons slung across their shoulders? I'm not sure whose bright idea that was.
Last week there were 40 shootings in Chicago despite the fact that handguns are illegal in Chicago. This seems to me to be a good indication that gun control laws like those that Chicago has do not work.
That's because you can drive to Cicero (a few miles away) and buy a gun. Now, if you can't drive anywhere within a 500 mile radius and buy a gun, that's an entirely different matter.
It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.
I hope the spotters have really accurate watches and are good at triangulation...
Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
There's a lot more money to be made suppressing symptoms than there is to be made solving problems. Go go capitalism! /barf
The problem is the company should never have gotten to the point that they were "too big to prosecute".
I agree that the solution may have been the best available given the circumstances, but those circumstances should not have been allowed to occur.
I was able to unload my Wave invites for like $20 each on eBay when I got in on the ground floor. Haven't logged in since. :)
We have to multitask as a species. If we stopped the whole world to work on one problem at a time, nothing would get done.
Context switching is expensive.
Y
O
U
A
R
E
V
E
R
Y
S
U
B
T
L
E
!
Awesome, now we just need to align our culture to the biological cues of our bodies.
Will you be the first to write Congress saying it should be legal for an 11 year old girl to get married and have kids? Because until that happens, "kids" will have premarital sex.
I think we're simply trying to discern the contents of Russell's teapot at this point. Turtles all the way down and all that.
If you're posting from work it does. But yes, you are correct in other instances.
The result was statistically irrelevant to their findings but it's hard to shake a niggling anecdotal doubt in his mind, theirs, and mine, that maybe the research and the tumour were connected.
Well, better get shakin', because they're not related.
Look: Humans are naturally bad at these kinds of analyses because of our over-active pattern detectors. You're seeing a pattern that isn't there. Step back, make that realization, and you're free.
Well yeah, if you're subject to the Hatch Act, which only Federal employees are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
Ah yes, another series written by different religious looney also has that feeling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming_Saga
BOOOOOOORING!
Meh, don't worry OP, I Foe-ed this guy some time in the past so his comment is worthless.
Actually, colourblindness can be legitimately described as a unique perspective on reality.
Yeah, so is being blind, or having only 1 eye, or being deaf, or having glaucoma, or a zillion other things.
people are ethical or they are not. age has nothing to do with it.
Tell that to your average 4 year old.
"Right near da beach. BOYEEEE!"
Man I haven't seen that movie in ages.