How? By not prohibiting the sale itself, only who is making the sale. Tesla can sell all the cars they want, as long as they use local dealers to do so. Therefore interstate commerce is not prohibited. Still a dumb law, but I don't see anything here that makes it unconstitutional or federal.
Controlled substances can only be sold through pharmacies by licensed pharmacists. And new cars can only be sold through local car dealerships. Now why only local car dealerships should be allowed to sell cars, or why we're equating new cars to controlled substances, I don't understand. But we are, and it's legal for the states to make dumb laws like this.
The right wing should be opposed on free-market principles. The left wing should be opposed on environmental grounds. So which politicians should be in favour of this regulation again?
Right!. That's how scientific research works too. Write a paper for a journal run my you and your friends then right a new paper sighting the published one and submit to a more prestigious journal, who's reviewers are also colleagues. Now it's all fine
I see what you did there.
(It's "citing". I'd tell you to look up that word in wikipedia, but I'm guessing it's been illicitly edited by some research journals trying to skew the definition their way.)
And sometimes you can find out it had a lot more information previously, but someone removed it because it was untrue, false, libelous, or, cardinal of all sins, lacked citations.
The reality is that you can't really know why that information is gone without more information. It may have been removed legitimately. Or it may have been removed as part of a whitewash to clean up an image. So now, which is the better article? The one before or after the subtractions? We don't necessarily know.
So, you don't use a club on your steering wheel, you don't bother hiding valuables in your trunk, leaving them in plain view, and, really, since a professional can get in the car anyway, just leave the doors unlocked. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.
If a malicious attacker/user is portscanning your system and finds that port 22 is open, they're going to assume an ssh attack. If they find port 1234, they may move on to another target that has port 22 open instead. Of course, if they're really after you, and not just throwing a wide net, then such shenanigans aren't going to stop them, though it might slow them down for a little while while they try to figure out what's listening on which non-standard port.
If a script kiddie is doing the same, most likely port 1234 would be enough to fool them, and they'd never get in.
Seems like smoke and mirrors are a useful tool in a secure system's administration, but should never be the sole tool.
First, you have to amortise the cost of the item over its lifespan. That blender that is two bucks cheaper may last just as long as the solidly-built one, especially if I only have light-duty uses for a blender. Or the TV I bought a week ago for $200 has a planned lifespan of no more than about 5 years by which time I hope to have a plan for a better, complete entertainment system - so there's no point in buying a $500 TV that's going to get replaced in 5 years anyway. Or the car that costs $20k and lasts 5 years is still a better deal than the car that costs $50k and lasts 10 years.
Second, you have to look at opportunity costs. Even comparing a $20k vehicle that needs replacing after 4 years (a real stinker) and comparing to a $50k car that needs replacing after 10 (a bit of a stinker, but these numbers provide nice, round numbers), the $20k vehicle is still a better deal - I only need to come up with $20k now, if I need a loan, I only pay interest on whatever I can't pay outright on $20k, not the extra $30k, and the rest of the money can be used for other purposes for 4 years, perhaps in a GIC or other investments, or paying off other loans (credit cards, mortgage, etc.).
And, finally, you have to look at money available. If I need a blender, don't need anything fancy, and don't really have anything budgeted for it, the cheaper one fits that budget better. Maybe it's better to have the blender than not, but I don't have money for it. Blenders may make less of an issue here, but often vehicles and food fit here better - this becomes one of my issues with organic foods - by driving up the cost of good, nutritious whole foods, you force a bunch of people who are struggling financially (i.e., the poor) to buy less nutritionally beneficial processed foods because they can no longer afford wholesome foods. Yes, it's better, but if you don't have the money, you just don't have the money.
It's just a disfunctional Chrome with Opera branding now.
Chrome is just a dysfunctional Webkit, which is just a dysfunctional Khtml....
Except that I find more websites work when I enable the KWebKitPart plugin in Konqueror than when I use KHTML for the renderer. So, while they may have had similar origins, WebKit seems to be getting more love.
The thing is, however, that Bitcoin spreads by the same mechanisms that allow(ed) FOSS to become so enormously successful. Hence and ergo: Bitcoin can not be stopped. Certainly not by some rednecks paid by the US government.
FOSS did not compete with the government. Bitcoin does. Trivialising this difference renders your analogy moot.
If your doctor tells you that you need antibiotics, you weight the risk and cost vs the reward to determine your course of action. In this case, the risk to you is low, the cost is similarly low, the reward is that your infection likely goes away faster (in extreme cases, saving your life, but not in general).
If the AGW politicians tell you that you need to sacrifice your entire standard of living in order to curtail a problem that they still don't understand (and, let's face it, they don't understand it because they still can't predict it, even on a decade-by-decade basis, nevermind year-over-year), the risk is high (no understanding of likely outcomes), the cost is even higher (likely resulting in many human deaths), and the rewards are vague.
Those aren't even kind of similar. For an analogy to work, there must be a reasonable amount of similarity, and your analogy has almost none.
I'm all in favour of technology improving our cheap-energy viability. But the problem is that the only realistic cheap-energy that is currently technically viable is nuclear. And that has the same group of environmentalists opposed to it as are trying to decry AGW. They're shooting their cause in the foot.
Other than oil executives, most of the rest of us don't care where our energy comes from. But we know we need it. And most of us don't want to double (or more) our energy costs. We have a viable alternative. Use it. That will kill more opposition to AGW changes than any "scientific" argument you can come up with. Make our lives easier for less cost, and it will be adopted overnight (relatively speaking). Use your scientists to proclaim the actual safety of the nuclear industry. You'll do far more to remove carbon emissions than anything else currently being tried.
It's the old adage - catching more flies with honey than vinegar. Don't accuse us, attract us with what we want. Cheap, reliable energy. Remember Aesop's fable about the North Wind vs the Sun. The man wears a coat to keep warm - blowing a cold wind only makes him hold it harder, but give him warmth and he sheds his coat willingly. Give us what we want, cheap, reliable energy, and you get what you want, fewer carbon emissions.
I'd recommend making your own. All reviews of AC's popcorn are negative. Complaints about oversalting with arsenic and strychnine, largely, though one customer complained about insufficient amounts of butter.
All corn is GM corn. The stuff we call "corn" did not evolve naturally, but by extreme pressure by human farmers. The stuff we eat cannot grow without human intervention and is anything but natural. Just because we didn't modify its genetics through a test tube doesn't make it non-modified genetically.
I have also had the case where a celebrity or politician comes to mind a day or two before they die unexpectedly. More often than not, I have a general feeling that something is wrong right before it happens.
When Princess Diana was killed in an auto crash, the media fawned over her. I remember asking my coworkers if Mother Theresa would get as much publicity if she died. It couldn't have been too long after that, since the two only died, what, 6 days apart? I didn't find the prediction of death freaky, I found the prediction of apathy from the media disappointingly predicted.
Why do you think chip and pin would be an update to security practices? We've had that discussion before. Multiple times. It's more security theatre, and I doubt that this attack would have been much more difficult to co-ordinate with chip/pin cards.
Have you seen some of the real stop signs out there? I'd say many of them were arbitrarily placed by untrained, though authorized, personnel. Seriously, most of them could be replaced with yield signs, which is what they effectively are since few people do more than roll through them, and allow our traffic enforcement to focus on issues that might actually make a difference.
Until this got leaked out into the public sphere, they were gagged by the same surveillance orders. They couldn't say anything without admitting they were served with secret subpoenas. Now that this is public knowledge, they can refer to those that were leaked and say this is bad for business/citizens without breaking the law on any further subpoenas.
So, maybe they didn't care. Or maybe they did and just couldn't say anything about it due to the same evil law. From this vantage point, we still can't tell for sure.
I don't get it. Why do they need to change around the cause? Is it to make it more plausible or something?
You're talking about a superhero. There's nothing you can do to make that plausible. However, there is a lot you can do to screw with your most loyal fanbase, the fanboys who know the story better than you do. So, really. Just don't.
What you're still missing is that if you do not have fear of someone wielding a knife at you menacingly, either you're Jean-Claude Van Damme, or you're irrationally not in fear.
I know my reflexes are not fast enough to avoid a knife. To me, there's not a significant difference here.
Yes, if the person is 30 feet or more away, a gun is far more menacing. But inside that threat range, there's not a significant difference. Which is why police officers are trained to treat a knife-wielding person within 21 feet (or maybe a bigger circle) as if they were immediately beside them. And why "paranoid" people will carry a gun so that if they're threatened from that larger distance they stand a reasonable chance of survival.
The major difference is that you will live in abject horror for a little while longer, and then slowly bleed to death, when confronted by a madman with a knife.
If someone intent on harming you with a knife is 21 feet away from you, and you have a holstered gun, you stand a pretty good chance of being dead.
I think you may be overestimating your ability to defend yourself should someone try and physically attack you.
So, you're justifying preferential treatment for women to gain "equality" on... let's see now... the fact that men and women are different?
Ok, so men and women are different. Remind me again why they should be treated the same?
Instead, I would suggest that we, as a society, should embrace our differences. As long as jobs are given to those who best have the skills for them, who cares if one job category hires predominantly men or predominantly women? And as long as the pay is what the market will bear, which is necessarily influenced (but not dictated) by how difficult it is to procure people with the appropriate skills, who cares if one gender is paid more than the other?
I suggest that by removing quotas and other artificial barriers to people embracing their talents and skills we may end up with a more equitable and happier society, though we won't end up with equal pay across the board because people are different.
By the way, this would also mean that jobs with physical requirements (soldier, police, fire) would not be allowed to have different entrance requirements based on the applicant's gender. However, they can have different entrance requirements based on the job to be performed. A beat cop may require more physical strength than a detective, for example. An analyst may not require any physical attributes, only mental skills, so it doesn't matter if s/he is a 400lb gorilla of a person, as long as they can analyse appropriately as per their actual day-to-day job requirements. And some of those may pay better, and get more women, than some of the more physical jobs. And a firefighter needs to be able to carry a 250lb person over their shoulder out of a burning building, regardless of their height (obviously, taller/bigger people can do this easier, which naturally makes it harder for average women to perform this duty, but that's biological, not discriminatory).
Slashdot Mirror
How? By not prohibiting the sale itself, only who is making the sale. Tesla can sell all the cars they want, as long as they use local dealers to do so. Therefore interstate commerce is not prohibited. Still a dumb law, but I don't see anything here that makes it unconstitutional or federal.
Controlled substances can only be sold through pharmacies by licensed pharmacists. And new cars can only be sold through local car dealerships. Now why only local car dealerships should be allowed to sell cars, or why we're equating new cars to controlled substances, I don't understand. But we are, and it's legal for the states to make dumb laws like this.
The right wing should be opposed on free-market principles. The left wing should be opposed on environmental grounds. So which politicians should be in favour of this regulation again?
Right!. That's how scientific research works too. Write a paper for a journal run my you and your friends then right a new paper sighting the published one and submit to a more prestigious journal, who's reviewers are also colleagues. Now it's all fine
I see what you did there.
(It's "citing". I'd tell you to look up that word in wikipedia, but I'm guessing it's been illicitly edited by some research journals trying to skew the definition their way.)
And sometimes you can find out it had a lot more information previously, but someone removed it because it was untrue, false, libelous, or, cardinal of all sins, lacked citations.
The reality is that you can't really know why that information is gone without more information. It may have been removed legitimately. Or it may have been removed as part of a whitewash to clean up an image. So now, which is the better article? The one before or after the subtractions? We don't necessarily know.
Sounds exactly like the buzz about Obama back in about 2007...
So, you don't use a club on your steering wheel, you don't bother hiding valuables in your trunk, leaving them in plain view, and, really, since a professional can get in the car anyway, just leave the doors unlocked. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.
If a malicious attacker/user is portscanning your system and finds that port 22 is open, they're going to assume an ssh attack. If they find port 1234, they may move on to another target that has port 22 open instead. Of course, if they're really after you, and not just throwing a wide net, then such shenanigans aren't going to stop them, though it might slow them down for a little while while they try to figure out what's listening on which non-standard port.
If a script kiddie is doing the same, most likely port 1234 would be enough to fool them, and they'd never get in.
Seems like smoke and mirrors are a useful tool in a secure system's administration, but should never be the sole tool.
What I'd have Obama do is be completely fucking honest with us instead of bullshitting us about it.
But I'm an idealist, what do I know?
Price is a lot.
First, you have to amortise the cost of the item over its lifespan. That blender that is two bucks cheaper may last just as long as the solidly-built one, especially if I only have light-duty uses for a blender. Or the TV I bought a week ago for $200 has a planned lifespan of no more than about 5 years by which time I hope to have a plan for a better, complete entertainment system - so there's no point in buying a $500 TV that's going to get replaced in 5 years anyway. Or the car that costs $20k and lasts 5 years is still a better deal than the car that costs $50k and lasts 10 years.
Second, you have to look at opportunity costs. Even comparing a $20k vehicle that needs replacing after 4 years (a real stinker) and comparing to a $50k car that needs replacing after 10 (a bit of a stinker, but these numbers provide nice, round numbers), the $20k vehicle is still a better deal - I only need to come up with $20k now, if I need a loan, I only pay interest on whatever I can't pay outright on $20k, not the extra $30k, and the rest of the money can be used for other purposes for 4 years, perhaps in a GIC or other investments, or paying off other loans (credit cards, mortgage, etc.).
And, finally, you have to look at money available. If I need a blender, don't need anything fancy, and don't really have anything budgeted for it, the cheaper one fits that budget better. Maybe it's better to have the blender than not, but I don't have money for it. Blenders may make less of an issue here, but often vehicles and food fit here better - this becomes one of my issues with organic foods - by driving up the cost of good, nutritious whole foods, you force a bunch of people who are struggling financially (i.e., the poor) to buy less nutritionally beneficial processed foods because they can no longer afford wholesome foods. Yes, it's better, but if you don't have the money, you just don't have the money.
It's just a disfunctional Chrome with Opera branding now.
Chrome is just a dysfunctional Webkit, which is just a dysfunctional Khtml....
Except that I find more websites work when I enable the KWebKitPart plugin in Konqueror than when I use KHTML for the renderer. So, while they may have had similar origins, WebKit seems to be getting more love.
Ah. The old, "He may be a liar, but he's my liar" argument.
How about giving yourself some credibility and calling out liars on both sides of the aisle?
The thing is, however, that Bitcoin spreads by the same mechanisms that allow(ed) FOSS to become so enormously successful. Hence and ergo: Bitcoin can not be stopped. Certainly not by some rednecks paid by the US government.
FOSS did not compete with the government. Bitcoin does. Trivialising this difference renders your analogy moot.
Or in New Jersey, if not arrested, at least not punished by the Governor's staff...
Or his whip. If you're into that kind of thing.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wow. Really?
If your doctor tells you that you need antibiotics, you weight the risk and cost vs the reward to determine your course of action. In this case, the risk to you is low, the cost is similarly low, the reward is that your infection likely goes away faster (in extreme cases, saving your life, but not in general).
If the AGW politicians tell you that you need to sacrifice your entire standard of living in order to curtail a problem that they still don't understand (and, let's face it, they don't understand it because they still can't predict it, even on a decade-by-decade basis, nevermind year-over-year), the risk is high (no understanding of likely outcomes), the cost is even higher (likely resulting in many human deaths), and the rewards are vague.
Those aren't even kind of similar. For an analogy to work, there must be a reasonable amount of similarity, and your analogy has almost none.
I'm all in favour of technology improving our cheap-energy viability. But the problem is that the only realistic cheap-energy that is currently technically viable is nuclear. And that has the same group of environmentalists opposed to it as are trying to decry AGW. They're shooting their cause in the foot.
Other than oil executives, most of the rest of us don't care where our energy comes from. But we know we need it. And most of us don't want to double (or more) our energy costs. We have a viable alternative. Use it. That will kill more opposition to AGW changes than any "scientific" argument you can come up with. Make our lives easier for less cost, and it will be adopted overnight (relatively speaking). Use your scientists to proclaim the actual safety of the nuclear industry. You'll do far more to remove carbon emissions than anything else currently being tried.
It's the old adage - catching more flies with honey than vinegar. Don't accuse us, attract us with what we want. Cheap, reliable energy. Remember Aesop's fable about the North Wind vs the Sun. The man wears a coat to keep warm - blowing a cold wind only makes him hold it harder, but give him warmth and he sheds his coat willingly. Give us what we want, cheap, reliable energy, and you get what you want, fewer carbon emissions.
I'd recommend making your own. All reviews of AC's popcorn are negative. Complaints about oversalting with arsenic and strychnine, largely, though one customer complained about insufficient amounts of butter.
All corn is GM corn. The stuff we call "corn" did not evolve naturally, but by extreme pressure by human farmers. The stuff we eat cannot grow without human intervention and is anything but natural. Just because we didn't modify its genetics through a test tube doesn't make it non-modified genetically.
I have also had the case where a celebrity or politician comes to mind a day or two before they die unexpectedly. More often than not, I have a general feeling that something is wrong right before it happens.
When Princess Diana was killed in an auto crash, the media fawned over her. I remember asking my coworkers if Mother Theresa would get as much publicity if she died. It couldn't have been too long after that, since the two only died, what, 6 days apart? I didn't find the prediction of death freaky, I found the prediction of apathy from the media disappointingly predicted.
Given that he can't be re-elected no matter how well or poorly he performs ... no, no one you can hold accountable.
And my other link got squashed. Another time chip-and-pin was discussed here.
Why do you think chip and pin would be an update to security practices? We've had that discussion before. Multiple times. It's more security theatre, and I doubt that this attack would have been much more difficult to co-ordinate with chip/pin cards.
Have you seen some of the real stop signs out there? I'd say many of them were arbitrarily placed by untrained, though authorized, personnel. Seriously, most of them could be replaced with yield signs, which is what they effectively are since few people do more than roll through them, and allow our traffic enforcement to focus on issues that might actually make a difference.
Until this got leaked out into the public sphere, they were gagged by the same surveillance orders. They couldn't say anything without admitting they were served with secret subpoenas. Now that this is public knowledge, they can refer to those that were leaked and say this is bad for business/citizens without breaking the law on any further subpoenas.
So, maybe they didn't care. Or maybe they did and just couldn't say anything about it due to the same evil law. From this vantage point, we still can't tell for sure.
I don't get it. Why do they need to change around the cause? Is it to make it more plausible or something?
You're talking about a superhero. There's nothing you can do to make that plausible. However, there is a lot you can do to screw with your most loyal fanbase, the fanboys who know the story better than you do. So, really. Just don't.
What you're still missing is that if you do not have fear of someone wielding a knife at you menacingly, either you're Jean-Claude Van Damme, or you're irrationally not in fear.
I know my reflexes are not fast enough to avoid a knife. To me, there's not a significant difference here.
Yes, if the person is 30 feet or more away, a gun is far more menacing. But inside that threat range, there's not a significant difference. Which is why police officers are trained to treat a knife-wielding person within 21 feet (or maybe a bigger circle) as if they were immediately beside them. And why "paranoid" people will carry a gun so that if they're threatened from that larger distance they stand a reasonable chance of survival.
I think you underestimate knives.
The major difference is that you will live in abject horror for a little while longer, and then slowly bleed to death, when confronted by a madman with a knife.
If someone intent on harming you with a knife is 21 feet away from you, and you have a holstered gun, you stand a pretty good chance of being dead.
I think you may be overestimating your ability to defend yourself should someone try and physically attack you.
So, you're justifying preferential treatment for women to gain "equality" on... let's see now ... the fact that men and women are different?
Ok, so men and women are different. Remind me again why they should be treated the same?
Instead, I would suggest that we, as a society, should embrace our differences. As long as jobs are given to those who best have the skills for them, who cares if one job category hires predominantly men or predominantly women? And as long as the pay is what the market will bear, which is necessarily influenced (but not dictated) by how difficult it is to procure people with the appropriate skills, who cares if one gender is paid more than the other?
I suggest that by removing quotas and other artificial barriers to people embracing their talents and skills we may end up with a more equitable and happier society, though we won't end up with equal pay across the board because people are different.
By the way, this would also mean that jobs with physical requirements (soldier, police, fire) would not be allowed to have different entrance requirements based on the applicant's gender. However, they can have different entrance requirements based on the job to be performed. A beat cop may require more physical strength than a detective, for example. An analyst may not require any physical attributes, only mental skills, so it doesn't matter if s/he is a 400lb gorilla of a person, as long as they can analyse appropriately as per their actual day-to-day job requirements. And some of those may pay better, and get more women, than some of the more physical jobs. And a firefighter needs to be able to carry a 250lb person over their shoulder out of a burning building, regardless of their height (obviously, taller/bigger people can do this easier, which naturally makes it harder for average women to perform this duty, but that's biological, not discriminatory).