Have you *looked* at facebook? Huge numbers of people proudly post every real, factual detail of their real lives to it.
What's worse is that huge numbers of people proudly post every real, factual detail of THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS to it as well. The day one well-meaning aunt finally joined f/b was the day they got my: full real name, real birthday, personal (not junk) email address, and dozens of tagged photos of my face --both with my fake f/b name and real name--, from childhood to present. And we weren't even friends.
The same person had previously given my real name, real birthday, and real email address to a questionable "genealogy" website, and we had had a long talk after that. If she knew my SS# she'd probably have put that out there, too.
That's the part that troubles me the most. You can take all reasonable precautions, even paranoia level precautions, but if anyone else has access to the info, it is simply and ultimately out of your control.
Reread what I wrote. I was addressing the affects of non-prescription use of ADHD drugs. To be clearer, this means its use in people without ADD/ADHD, those whose working memory and executive function system is already at a normal level before they use these drugs: for example non-ADD/ADHD students using them solely for an academic boost.
One problem with ADD/ADHD meds is that they don't enhance cognitive capacity, they alter it. For those with ADD/ADHD, they alter it in a manner that mimics non-ADD/ADHD brain function. For others, it's more like what happens when using methamphetamines. For all the increased focus, concentration, and attention one might gain for singular tasks, one also sacrifices the broader abstract capacity needed to understand larger swaths of a field, or that required to create original work or research. Adderall might be great for things such as memorizing lists or sorting thousands of bits of metal into various jars, but not so great when it's time to come up with an original topic for a paper that incorporates disparate concepts in a field.
So if you use these types of substances through school, you should prepare to continue to use them through the course of your professional field. Otherwise what you will have done is artificially alter your cognitive abilities in such a manner that your academic record won't accurately reflect your abilities. Essentially you'll be performing a bait-and-switch. When you land in the workplace you will not have the abilities that your educational record will reflect.
So for all those kids out there using Adderall to study, to be fair you should plan on using it for the rest of your working days.
I recognize that people tend to try to justify their purchases after the fact. And, at the risk of sounding like I'm doing exactly that, after more than a year of using ChromeOS on the 1st gen Samsung Series 5 model, I remain happy with my purchase.(For comparison, my previous laptop was the last plastic MacBook, and before that a 1000 model of the Asus Eee, which I think was their 3d revision.)
The biggest criticism I have is that power supply plug will probably be the first thing to finally break. It has the same issues anything that isn't MagSafe does -- you can trip over it, bend the pins, and/or have your book go flying. What people seemed to overlook when pricing out the Chromebooks last year was that the 3G version included 2 years' worth of 100 MB per month of 3G access. Limited yes, but I've used it while traveling, have yet to exceed the limit before I'm back within WiFi range, and still have a year left to go. My usage pattern on my previous devices was already mostly browser based. No portable device that I've had has yet to prove sufficient for media or games, and I still have a desktop machine for that.
ChromeOS is a linux flavor. So if you must go with anything from Mint to Slack, it's no harder than it would be with any other laptop. Easier probably, because all of the hardware will necessarily have available linux drivers. If you've had to go through the pain in the ass that is/was ndiswrapper for wireless access in previous portable machines, you should understand why that's a nice perk. If you want you can install any other flavor of linux you can, and local storage is all of a USB cable away. You do miss out on the advantages of Trusted Platform Module, but might gain a bit in the way of speed. Speed -v- security is always going to be a compromise; encryption/decryption just takes time. ChromeOS has the fastest hard boot I've ever seen in a device-- you can cold-cycle the thing in twenty seconds, and it defaults to your last browser state. That's... really fucking nice, it turns out. Machine freeze on you after being left on for the past four weeks? Hold the button down for five seconds, and the longest part of your restart will be however long it takes you to enter your password.
What I've had was a low budget machine with excellent battery life --easily five times the length of a MacBook with an extra large battery-- a full size keyboard, a TCM, and native 3G connectivity to cover the areas where WiFi is out of range. If you're balking at the daring concept of minimal onboard storage (the horror!) I'd recommend you reconsider the respective value of features such as: TCM, two years' of basic, free 3G backup, guaranteed Linux support for all hardware, really good battery life, and not only a price range at which total loss or destruction of the device isn't particularly painful, but a forced use pattern that means you will probably not even lose any *data* in the case of theft or destruction.
WHY OH WHY is this not being sold with a full OS that can run non-web-based apps? I mean, surely it wouldn't cost any more money to put Debian (or Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever) on this thing and let us run both browser stuff *and* regular Linux apps, right? What's the rationale for limiting it?
You *can* put a different Linux distro on it, if you want. You have to flip an easily-accessible switch and, in the process, disable a nifty security feature to do so.
The rationale for ChromeOS is that it provides a verified boot environment. This feature gives it a park that seems to me like a decent selling point for corporate and government users who have to process sensitive information -- securities firms, medical records, social security numbers, etc. From their blog:
Our security model is rooted in two pieces of hardware that ship with every Chromebook: a custom firmware chip and a Trusted Platform Module (TPM). The custom firmware chip consists of two parts: a read-only firmware and a read-write firmware that can be updated. When you press the power button, our read-only firmware starts a process we call Verified Boot. It uses an embedded 8192-bit RSA public key to verify the cryptographic signature on the read-write firmware.
After the read-only firmware verifies and runs the read-write firmware, the latter performs a similar verification operation on the operating system kernel before running it. The operating system kernel will then continue the verification process as it loads all of the system software, like Chrome.
The goal of Verified Boot is to provide cryptographic assurances that the system code hasnâ(TM)t been modified by an attacker on the Chromebook. Additionally, we use lockable, non-volatile memory (NVRAM) in the TPM to ensure that outdated signatures wonâ(TM)t be accepted. To put this into perspective, the system does all this in about 8 seconds.
If you don't want to boot Google-verified software â" let's say you built your own version of Chromium OS â" no problem. You can flip the developer switch on your device and use the Chromebook however you'd like.
Problem there is that evidence was (considering the source) almost certainly obtained through illegal action. (hacking) This cause three immediate problems. 1. most legal systems spoil evidence that has been obtained through illegal actions, 2. it may make assembling an unspoiled jury (that has not been exposed to the tainted evidence) difficult, and 3. it may make the same evidence, obtained through legal means, more difficult or impossible to bring to court.
Points 1 and 3 are not applicable to this context. Evidence is spoiled only when it is obtained through illegal means by the state. Failure to obtain proper search warrants, lack of reasonable cause, etc. However if the illegal means of publicizing the evidence was a private action, the state is off the hook.
For example: Burglar breaks into a house, stumbles across a torture/murder operation that had until that point not been suspected. Burglar can go the police, and that will give them sufficient probable cause to investigate. Burglar could even send them an anonymous letter, or, as was done here, simply discuss the details anonymously on a publicly-accessible forum. So long as the state follows proper procedure at the point it comes to their attention, the evidence will not be spoiled.
Tainted jury from publicity is certainly an obstacle, but that is what voir dire is for.
Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (whether you consider that Dem or Rep), if you think they're both bad, vote someone else. It won't be a wasted vote, because you're supporting the party you support - so what if they don't get in?
So what happens? You get George W. Bush in 2000. Sometimes the lesser evil is, or certainly would have been in retrospect, a much, much better choice.
What would the libertarian approach to a private company making their own, legal, decision be, even if you found it unfair or even perhaps detrimental to society overall? Would it involve attempting to mandate a different decision by force of law? Or to force a private company to act in a certain way based solely on public outcry?
Hey maybe next time you could try riding a different, more effective, polittical ideology into power, THEN trying to force a your own "real", different ideology onto others.
And seriously: if you can't generate $50k, why is it exactly you believe you're qualified to be in a position to steer the direction of multiples of that amount?
Think of it like packing your bags for to catch a morning flight out for a two weeks' vacation. What they're describing is the difference between packing your luggage the night before (or earlier) and packing it the morning of your flight.
For a lot of daily, repetitive actions it makes sense to think about them en masse. Planning your breakfast meals for a week, a month, or indefinitely allows you to think carefully --and once-- about the caloric content, nutrient balance, budget, time to prepare, time to eat, etc. Planning your outfits allows you the same luxury: it's easier to budget a the time spent dressing, laundering, and purchasing your clothes when you're not doing it over and over again every day.
I heard a radio interview of an efficiency expert who was asked --snidely, as if a positive answer would mean he was incredibly anal-- if he carefully planned out his morning bathroom routine. He said, without reservation, that indeed he did: he'd thought through his morning routine, and on his bathroom counter he lined the various products up he would use in the order he would use them.
Having these sorts of things set up for you just just step through without having to search for them is just like having your properly workstation configured: it saves you time and effort, and allows you to get started more quickly.
No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.
Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.
Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.
We're getting closer. It's more like Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race known for it's poor safety record for spectators, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement, but they don't want their brand associated with any negative press if any spectators get mowed down by their car.
AMONGST OUR IMPRESSIONS ARE SUCH DIVERSE ELEMENTS AS:
-inaccurate beliefs about license requirements
-poor safety records
-negative press
-mowing down of spec... I'll come in again.
I have yet to encounter a business which uses BitCoins as a means of payment. They must exist and I could look them up, but I have yet to encounter one as part of my regular Internet usage. None of the big businesses use it, none of the smaller businesses use it, even geeky sites don't use it. This makes BitCoins rather pointless compared to regular coin.
Well, SilkRoad seems a rather large exception to your claim, and it apparently runs on BitCoins. While that particular market apparently ranges from the questionably legal to the obviously illegal, its use of BC currency seems to me a strong indicator of the strength and utility of BitCoins as a currency.
It's similar to how the porn industry's adaption of a new technology is a good indicator of said tech's future promise.
we (as a society) obviously need kids and most people accept that facilitating the creation of families is a good thing.
If that's true, "most people" should reconsider their perspective. While we do need to have *some* children to perpetuate humankind, we don't need nearly as many kids as women tend to birth. A lot of our current global problems are a result of overpopulation.
Most people don't have children out of a sense of worldwide benevolence, but rather from either a self-interested instinct to simply procreate one's own genes, or an unexamined acceptance of a cultural tradition that procreating and raising a family is simply what a person is supposed to do.
Martha Stewart spent five months in a federal prison in Alderson, WV, for making false statements to federal investigators --a lesser crime than lying to one's probation officer. THEN, after she spent five months in prison, she spent another five months under home confinement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Incarceration
No Assemblypersons opposed AB 1844, but California State Senators Joel Anderson, Rep. (Southeastern CA, District 36), Sam Blakeslee, Rep. (Central Coastal CA, District 15), Lou Correa, Dem. ( inland SE of LA including Anaheim, District 34), Ted Gaines, Rep. (northeastern CA, including Lake Tahoe), and Mimi Walters, Rep. (inland from Laguna Beach, District 33) were the only five legislators who voted no on the bill. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1844_vote_20120828_1040AM_sen_floor.html
According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.
SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.
Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.
Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.
Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs.
So far the most detailed description I've come across is basically Young saying that Pono will contain "95% more" information than current digital files, apparently all in terms of resolution. That's barely more detailed than saying that Pono is "95% better," and frankly if it's simply an increase in resolution I'm highly sceptical that any difference will be perceptible by human ears.
Some detail, *any* detail, on how the format differs than what's currently available would be quite useful, Young.
It's not as if the protesters actually need to watch the clip to know how offensive they find it, or why.
So far the full movie has only had one poorly-attended screening in Hollywood. It's not online. The YouTube clip is a short preview, and it doesn't appear that the violent protesters even had to watch *that*. Someone they trusted told them they...I mean their prophet... had been insulted, and that was enough.
It's interesting that this is hitting Republican donors. Republicans tend to claim to see regulations as something to be avoided, as big-government, anti-free-market, babysitting when people and/or the free market should take responsibility.
However, this is exactly the sort of "there ought to be a law" technically-legal-but-unethical business practice that regulations, at their best, can and do address. Right now this guy is probably protected from a solid fraud case because he puts the disclaimer, albeit in tiny print and in an unlikely place to read it. But regulations could be promulgated that would require any page site that accepts political donations to post disclaimers of proper level of font size, prominence, and in clear language.
Such regulations already exist for, for example, the credit card "box" that clearly, states terms of credit card offers, including the APR, fees, etc. Before the "box" regulations, this info used to be squirreled away, in fine print, obscure language, if it was to be found at all. And like the donors, people often found themselves unwittingly fooled out of real money because they were duped.
I take it this is the first you've heard on the subject. That particular article --in Wired (the nerve!!!)-- won a few awards: The Best American Science Writing 2010, The Best Technology Writing 2010, and the 2010 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award.
There no dearth of scholarly articles focusing on placebo effect either, as you'd have found if you had cared to look. For example, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=175282 Though I suppose one could always continue to disregard the idea if by deciding to characterize a measurable, significant increase in prefrontal cordance --perhaps even depression itself-- both as merely subjective phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you *looked* at facebook? Huge numbers of people proudly post every real, factual detail of their real lives to it.
What's worse is that huge numbers of people proudly post every real, factual detail of THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS to it as well. The day one well-meaning aunt finally joined f/b was the day they got my: full real name, real birthday, personal (not junk) email address, and dozens of tagged photos of my face --both with my fake f/b name and real name--, from childhood to present. And we weren't even friends.
The same person had previously given my real name, real birthday, and real email address to a questionable "genealogy" website, and we had had a long talk after that. If she knew my SS# she'd probably have put that out there, too.
That's the part that troubles me the most. You can take all reasonable precautions, even paranoia level precautions, but if anyone else has access to the info, it is simply and ultimately out of your control.
Windows has never had anything as serious as a file system corruption bug.
I believe they've accomplished this by ensuring that NTFS fails safely to a state of corrupt registry hive errors instead.
Reread what I wrote. I was addressing the affects of non-prescription use of ADHD drugs. To be clearer, this means its use in people without ADD/ADHD, those whose working memory and executive function system is already at a normal level before they use these drugs: for example non-ADD/ADHD students using them solely for an academic boost.
One problem with ADD/ADHD meds is that they don't enhance cognitive capacity, they alter it. For those with ADD/ADHD, they alter it in a manner that mimics non-ADD/ADHD brain function. For others, it's more like what happens when using methamphetamines. For all the increased focus, concentration, and attention one might gain for singular tasks, one also sacrifices the broader abstract capacity needed to understand larger swaths of a field, or that required to create original work or research. Adderall might be great for things such as memorizing lists or sorting thousands of bits of metal into various jars, but not so great when it's time to come up with an original topic for a paper that incorporates disparate concepts in a field.
So if you use these types of substances through school, you should prepare to continue to use them through the course of your professional field. Otherwise what you will have done is artificially alter your cognitive abilities in such a manner that your academic record won't accurately reflect your abilities. Essentially you'll be performing a bait-and-switch. When you land in the workplace you will not have the abilities that your educational record will reflect.
So for all those kids out there using Adderall to study, to be fair you should plan on using it for the rest of your working days.
...the frame of which was constructed entirely of pressed straw.
I recognize that people tend to try to justify their purchases after the fact. And, at the risk of sounding like I'm doing exactly that, after more than a year of using ChromeOS on the 1st gen Samsung Series 5 model, I remain happy with my purchase.(For comparison, my previous laptop was the last plastic MacBook, and before that a 1000 model of the Asus Eee, which I think was their 3d revision.)
The biggest criticism I have is that power supply plug will probably be the first thing to finally break. It has the same issues anything that isn't MagSafe does -- you can trip over it, bend the pins, and/or have your book go flying. What people seemed to overlook when pricing out the Chromebooks last year was that the 3G version included 2 years' worth of 100 MB per month of 3G access. Limited yes, but I've used it while traveling, have yet to exceed the limit before I'm back within WiFi range, and still have a year left to go. My usage pattern on my previous devices was already mostly browser based. No portable device that I've had has yet to prove sufficient for media or games, and I still have a desktop machine for that.
ChromeOS is a linux flavor. So if you must go with anything from Mint to Slack, it's no harder than it would be with any other laptop. Easier probably, because all of the hardware will necessarily have available linux drivers. If you've had to go through the pain in the ass that is/was ndiswrapper for wireless access in previous portable machines, you should understand why that's a nice perk. If you want you can install any other flavor of linux you can, and local storage is all of a USB cable away. You do miss out on the advantages of Trusted Platform Module, but might gain a bit in the way of speed. Speed -v- security is always going to be a compromise; encryption/decryption just takes time. ChromeOS has the fastest hard boot I've ever seen in a device-- you can cold-cycle the thing in twenty seconds, and it defaults to your last browser state. That's... really fucking nice, it turns out. Machine freeze on you after being left on for the past four weeks? Hold the button down for five seconds, and the longest part of your restart will be however long it takes you to enter your password.
What I've had was a low budget machine with excellent battery life --easily five times the length of a MacBook with an extra large battery-- a full size keyboard, a TCM, and native 3G connectivity to cover the areas where WiFi is out of range. If you're balking at the daring concept of minimal onboard storage (the horror!) I'd recommend you reconsider the respective value of features such as: TCM, two years' of basic, free 3G backup, guaranteed Linux support for all hardware, really good battery life, and not only a price range at which total loss or destruction of the device isn't particularly painful, but a forced use pattern that means you will probably not even lose any *data* in the case of theft or destruction.
Riiight. I mean, what the fuck has Obama done so far? Oh wait... turns out he's actually done a lot of shit.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
WHY OH WHY is this not being sold with a full OS that can run non-web-based apps? I mean, surely it wouldn't cost any more money to put Debian (or Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever) on this thing and let us run both browser stuff *and* regular Linux apps, right? What's the rationale for limiting it?
You *can* put a different Linux distro on it, if you want. You have to flip an easily-accessible switch and, in the process, disable a nifty security feature to do so.
The rationale for ChromeOS is that it provides a verified boot environment. This feature gives it a park that seems to me like a decent selling point for corporate and government users who have to process sensitive information -- securities firms, medical records, social security numbers, etc. From their blog:
Our security model is rooted in two pieces of hardware that ship with every Chromebook: a custom firmware chip and a Trusted Platform Module (TPM). The custom firmware chip consists of two parts: a read-only firmware and a read-write firmware that can be updated. When you press the power button, our read-only firmware starts a process we call Verified Boot. It uses an embedded 8192-bit RSA public key to verify the cryptographic signature on the read-write firmware.
After the read-only firmware verifies and runs the read-write firmware, the latter performs a similar verification operation on the operating system kernel before running it. The operating system kernel will then continue the verification process as it loads all of the system software, like Chrome.
The goal of Verified Boot is to provide cryptographic assurances that the system code hasnâ(TM)t been modified by an attacker on the Chromebook. Additionally, we use lockable, non-volatile memory (NVRAM) in the TPM to ensure that outdated signatures wonâ(TM)t be accepted. To put this into perspective, the system does all this in about 8 seconds.
If you don't want to boot Google-verified software â" let's say you built your own version of Chromium OS â" no problem. You can flip the developer switch on your device and use the Chromebook however you'd like.
URL:http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/07/chromebook-security-browsing-more.html?
Problem there is that evidence was (considering the source) almost certainly obtained through illegal action. (hacking) This cause three immediate problems. 1. most legal systems spoil evidence that has been obtained through illegal actions, 2. it may make assembling an unspoiled jury (that has not been exposed to the tainted evidence) difficult, and 3. it may make the same evidence, obtained through legal means, more difficult or impossible to bring to court.
Points 1 and 3 are not applicable to this context. Evidence is spoiled only when it is obtained through illegal means by the state. Failure to obtain proper search warrants, lack of reasonable cause, etc. However if the illegal means of publicizing the evidence was a private action, the state is off the hook.
For example: Burglar breaks into a house, stumbles across a torture/murder operation that had until that point not been suspected. Burglar can go the police, and that will give them sufficient probable cause to investigate. Burglar could even send them an anonymous letter, or, as was done here, simply discuss the details anonymously on a publicly-accessible forum. So long as the state follows proper procedure at the point it comes to their attention, the evidence will not be spoiled.
Tainted jury from publicity is certainly an obstacle, but that is what voir dire is for.
Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (whether you consider that Dem or Rep), if you think they're both bad, vote someone else. It won't be a wasted vote, because you're supporting the party you support - so what if they don't get in?
So what happens? You get George W. Bush in 2000. Sometimes the lesser evil is, or certainly would have been in retrospect, a much, much better choice.
What would the libertarian approach to a private company making their own, legal, decision be, even if you found it unfair or even perhaps detrimental to society overall? Would it involve attempting to mandate a different decision by force of law? Or to force a private company to act in a certain way based solely on public outcry?
Hey maybe next time you could try riding a different, more effective, polittical ideology into power, THEN trying to force a your own "real", different ideology onto others.
And seriously: if you can't generate $50k, why is it exactly you believe you're qualified to be in a position to steer the direction of multiples of that amount?
Salt-resistant desks, tables, wall-hangings, chairs, and couches.
Because your lab is in an abandoned, forgotten salt mine.
Think of it like packing your bags for to catch a morning flight out for a two weeks' vacation. What they're describing is the difference between packing your luggage the night before (or earlier) and packing it the morning of your flight.
For a lot of daily, repetitive actions it makes sense to think about them en masse. Planning your breakfast meals for a week, a month, or indefinitely allows you to think carefully --and once-- about the caloric content, nutrient balance, budget, time to prepare, time to eat, etc. Planning your outfits allows you the same luxury: it's easier to budget a the time spent dressing, laundering, and purchasing your clothes when you're not doing it over and over again every day.
I heard a radio interview of an efficiency expert who was asked --snidely, as if a positive answer would mean he was incredibly anal-- if he carefully planned out his morning bathroom routine. He said, without reservation, that indeed he did: he'd thought through his morning routine, and on his bathroom counter he lined the various products up he would use in the order he would use them.
Having these sorts of things set up for you just just step through without having to search for them is just like having your properly workstation configured: it saves you time and effort, and allows you to get started more quickly.
No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.
Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.
Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.
We're getting closer. It's more like Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race known for it's poor safety record for spectators, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement, but they don't want their brand associated with any negative press if any spectators get mowed down by their car.
AMONGST OUR IMPRESSIONS ARE SUCH DIVERSE ELEMENTS AS:
-inaccurate beliefs about license requirements
-poor safety records
-negative press
-mowing down of spec... I'll come in again.
According to the official chart, it looks like weather balloons probably make much greater use of the spectrum than LS is willing to admit: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b51a211569e.jpg
Maybe they should look into the swamp gas spectrum.
I have yet to encounter a business which uses BitCoins as a means of payment. They must exist and I could look them up, but I have yet to encounter one as part of my regular Internet usage. None of the big businesses use it, none of the smaller businesses use it, even geeky sites don't use it. This makes BitCoins rather pointless compared to regular coin.
Well, SilkRoad seems a rather large exception to your claim, and it apparently runs on BitCoins. While that particular market apparently ranges from the questionably legal to the obviously illegal, its use of BC currency seems to me a strong indicator of the strength and utility of BitCoins as a currency.
It's similar to how the porn industry's adaption of a new technology is a good indicator of said tech's future promise.
we (as a society) obviously need kids and most people accept that facilitating the creation of families is a good thing.
If that's true, "most people" should reconsider their perspective. While we do need to have *some* children to perpetuate humankind, we don't need nearly as many kids as women tend to birth. A lot of our current global problems are a result of overpopulation.
Most people don't have children out of a sense of worldwide benevolence, but rather from either a self-interested instinct to simply procreate one's own genes, or an unexamined acceptance of a cultural tradition that procreating and raising a family is simply what a person is supposed to do.
Martha Stewart spent five months in a federal prison in Alderson, WV, for making false statements to federal investigators --a lesser crime than lying to one's probation officer. THEN, after she spent five months in prison, she spent another five months under home confinement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Incarceration
Supposedly he as arrested for making false statements to his probation officer. Is that something that a normal person would be jailed for?
Not sure. Ask Martha Stewart.
The only stated opposition to the bill came from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA )http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1844_cfa_20120829_144715_sen_floor.html, which reads in full:
According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.
SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.
Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.
Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.
Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs.
So far the most detailed description I've come across is basically Young saying that Pono will contain "95% more" information than current digital files, apparently all in terms of resolution. That's barely more detailed than saying that Pono is "95% better," and frankly if it's simply an increase in resolution I'm highly sceptical that any difference will be perceptible by human ears.
Some detail, *any* detail, on how the format differs than what's currently available would be quite useful, Young.
Jiffy pop armor.
It's not as if the protesters actually need to watch the clip to know how offensive they find it, or why.
So far the full movie has only had one poorly-attended screening in Hollywood. It's not online. The YouTube clip is a short preview, and it doesn't appear that the violent protesters even had to watch *that*. Someone they trusted told them they...I mean their prophet... had been insulted, and that was enough.
It's interesting that this is hitting Republican donors. Republicans tend to claim to see regulations as something to be avoided, as big-government, anti-free-market, babysitting when people and/or the free market should take responsibility.
However, this is exactly the sort of "there ought to be a law" technically-legal-but-unethical business practice that regulations, at their best, can and do address. Right now this guy is probably protected from a solid fraud case because he puts the disclaimer, albeit in tiny print and in an unlikely place to read it. But regulations could be promulgated that would require any page site that accepts political donations to post disclaimers of proper level of font size, prominence, and in clear language.
Such regulations already exist for, for example, the credit card "box" that clearly, states terms of credit card offers, including the APR, fees, etc. Before the "box" regulations, this info used to be squirreled away, in fine print, obscure language, if it was to be found at all. And like the donors, people often found themselves unwittingly fooled out of real money because they were duped.
Oh, dismissive, unsupported appeal to authority.
I take it this is the first you've heard on the subject. That particular article --in Wired (the nerve!!!)-- won a few awards: The Best American Science Writing 2010, The Best Technology Writing 2010, and the 2010 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award.
There no dearth of scholarly articles focusing on placebo effect either, as you'd have found if you had cared to look. For example, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=175282 Though I suppose one could always continue to disregard the idea if by deciding to characterize a measurable, significant increase in prefrontal cordance --perhaps even depression itself-- both as merely subjective phenomenon.