The atmosphere on Mars is much less dense, and it's almost possible these rocket scientists took that into account by testing with lower winds speeds on Earth.
Except that ditch digging isn't preferable because you make shit money and do shit labor..Net is no different than any language he current programs in those terms.
I think the whole point here is the definition of "shit labor."
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
I would define using your ears to hear something as equivalent to using a radio to hear it. Just because we happen to be born with ears instead of radios doesn't make the information any more secure. By basing our laws off of how humans are born, we are in many ways making them very short sited, as the emergence of new legal conflicts since the advent of the internet has demonstrated. Old laws for old systems are unfit when the system changes. As people start integrating more with technology, "plain view" may become less simple to define.
Heck, most people carry a magic box in their pants that receives and decodes electronic signals. Are those signals not in plain view? When does it stop being plain view?
This is why the distinction between "signals that leave your home unencrypted" and "signals that are encrypted/don't leave your home" is a farther reaching definition here. It won't be long before someone releases a "firesheep" tool to get people's credit card numbers or naughty emails just by sitting in range of their wifi.
Then would you consider it plain view? I mean, everyone has ears, and now everyone has cell phones. Would you only consider it plain view when everyone has the ability to easily intercept it? Because, right now, we are dangerously close to that being the reality.
Heck, I'd contribute to a bounty for the first person to write a "firesheep" for getting much more dangerous personal information from unencrypted wifi. Has to be as easy and idiot-friendly as firesheep. Might should include everything you need to make it unusable on you, too.
also burning wood, including their leaves, is roughly carbon neutral. The direct burning is completely neutral, it's the auxiliaries which makes it slightly off the totally neutral.
Google did not connect to their wifi. These people were transmitting EM signals which passed through Google's antenna and Google recorded them. They weren't transmitting through wires like on a phone, and they weren't encrypted in any way. They were using a standard encoding, like all unencrypted wifi.
It's not like opening a door at all, and representing it with that analogy is overtly misleading. They made no "positive action." A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know. You don't have to go out of your way, they were already talking loud enough for you to overhear without doing anything extra, and they weren't talking in a different language or in code. Would you prefer I shout my credit card number on the corner and sue anyone who writes it down? "The pen and paper are external tools he used to surveil me, your honor!" No, that's idiotic.
If you're using an analog cordless phone that transmits, at high power, an unencrypted signal of your message, you should have absolutely no expectation of privacy. That should never be considered wire tapping. If I'm sitting in my locked room and I can receive your information without having to decrypt it, there's no way that should be considered invading your privacy. It's like you walked out in the street and announced everything you're doing, and that's exactly the problem with saying what Google did was illegal. None of these people were protecting their privacy in any way.
If you're going to walk around naked all day, close your goddamned windows. Just because you're doing it in your house doesn't mean people can't see you.
I think the debates themselves are more of the issue in that complaint, seeing as only parties that the two major parties approve are allowed to participate in them. The C-Span issue is an artifact of that, in so much as people assume the only valid debates are those controlled by the CPD and aired on C-Span, thus undermining the separate, third-party debates.
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information. Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information. Even considering that Google did anything wrong at all here is complete and utter idiocy.
It's not Google's fault that Canadian law is ridiculous. You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Well, I guess you did, but that doesn't make it not stupid.
So they used noisy data to try and algorithmically guess what was hidden behind a bunch of "fog" and got a giant bubble, and now their conclusion is "there's a giant bubble!" and not "Maybe we have a systematic error in our analysis..."? To be fair, it's possible there is a giant bubble, I don't know the math here, but it seems... suspect.
If employers have to provide more benefits to lower-level employees, that means they are spending less elsewhere. That displacement will likely come out of taxable commercial expenses, thus both taking tax money from the government and damaging the growth potential of that organization (reducing future taxable income).
Jobs like janitor/fry cook/night stocker are all great jobs for teens and college kids. They're terrible places to find yourself at 40. I wouldn't want to be part of society that encouraged people to spend 40 hours a week doing such menial labor when they're older.
Lastly, severance benefits in the US typically amount to unemployment pay. I personally know people in the US who have been living off of unemployment for over 2 years. This is exactly the kind of thing you are arguing in favor of here, and the kind of "welfare mom" I feel is an unnecessary burden on the government.
I kinda like it because if I'm not an incompetent moron, most of those things are none of my concern. I have all the stuff you listed, it's pretty much in my contract. Ultimately, I like to think that this just means that my tax dollars aren't wasted carrying along people who are too lazy to get good jobs.
But then, Europeans never seem to complain about "welfare moms," so maybe their system eliminates people feeding off the government? Also, instead of my tax dollars going to feed and shelter the poor (which is still something I don't think tax dollars should be wasted on) they go to bomb and pillage the poor somewhere else on the planet (which is hardly a defensible act). So, tax money is wasted either way, but at least it's mostly wasted giving hard working folk a (largely pointless) job.
Slashdot Mirror
Capital to invest and capital to throw into the trash for regulatory compliance are not the same thing.
The atmosphere on Mars is much less dense, and it's almost possible these rocket scientists took that into account by testing with lower winds speeds on Earth.
Ya, we're just running our A.R.S.E.S. all over it, aren't we?
Except that ditch digging isn't preferable because you make shit money and do shit labor. .Net is no different than any language he current programs in those terms.
I think the whole point here is the definition of "shit labor."
No, no, no... HTML is great for typesetting! Web browsers are just terrible at rendering it.
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
I would define using your ears to hear something as equivalent to using a radio to hear it. Just because we happen to be born with ears instead of radios doesn't make the information any more secure. By basing our laws off of how humans are born, we are in many ways making them very short sited, as the emergence of new legal conflicts since the advent of the internet has demonstrated. Old laws for old systems are unfit when the system changes. As people start integrating more with technology, "plain view" may become less simple to define.
Heck, most people carry a magic box in their pants that receives and decodes electronic signals. Are those signals not in plain view? When does it stop being plain view?
This is why the distinction between "signals that leave your home unencrypted" and "signals that are encrypted/don't leave your home" is a farther reaching definition here. It won't be long before someone releases a "firesheep" tool to get people's credit card numbers or naughty emails just by sitting in range of their wifi.
Then would you consider it plain view? I mean, everyone has ears, and now everyone has cell phones. Would you only consider it plain view when everyone has the ability to easily intercept it? Because, right now, we are dangerously close to that being the reality.
Heck, I'd contribute to a bounty for the first person to write a "firesheep" for getting much more dangerous personal information from unencrypted wifi. Has to be as easy and idiot-friendly as firesheep. Might should include everything you need to make it unusable on you, too.
I like to call them "web sites."
also burning wood, including their leaves, is roughly carbon neutral. The direct burning is completely neutral, it's the auxiliaries which makes it slightly off the totally neutral.
- Skal Tura
This is what happens you you don't read at -1.
Google did not connect to their wifi. These people were transmitting EM signals which passed through Google's antenna and Google recorded them. They weren't transmitting through wires like on a phone, and they weren't encrypted in any way. They were using a standard encoding, like all unencrypted wifi.
It's not like opening a door at all, and representing it with that analogy is overtly misleading. They made no "positive action." A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know. You don't have to go out of your way, they were already talking loud enough for you to overhear without doing anything extra, and they weren't talking in a different language or in code. Would you prefer I shout my credit card number on the corner and sue anyone who writes it down? "The pen and paper are external tools he used to surveil me, your honor!" No, that's idiotic.
If you're using an analog cordless phone that transmits, at high power, an unencrypted signal of your message, you should have absolutely no expectation of privacy. That should never be considered wire tapping. If I'm sitting in my locked room and I can receive your information without having to decrypt it, there's no way that should be considered invading your privacy. It's like you walked out in the street and announced everything you're doing, and that's exactly the problem with saying what Google did was illegal. None of these people were protecting their privacy in any way.
If you're going to walk around naked all day, close your goddamned windows. Just because you're doing it in your house doesn't mean people can't see you.
I think the debates themselves are more of the issue in that complaint, seeing as only parties that the two major parties approve are allowed to participate in them. The C-Span issue is an artifact of that, in so much as people assume the only valid debates are those controlled by the CPD and aired on C-Span, thus undermining the separate, third-party debates.
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information. Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information. Even considering that Google did anything wrong at all here is complete and utter idiocy.
It's not Google's fault that Canadian law is ridiculous. You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Well, I guess you did, but that doesn't make it not stupid.
Ingest =/= Inhale
So our options for carbon-neutral illumination are:
A - Implant expensive-to-produce gold nano-particles in the leaves of trees
B - Light them on fire
Wow.
Maybe something like this?
Right, because no one's ever considered doing this before. Especially not in the UK!
Um, regardless of origin, a lot of findings can be a little suspect. Particularly if they aren't published findings.
Something's wonky here. I've gotten at least ten emails notifying me of this reply.
People who are social might be having more sex! Movie at 11!
So they used noisy data to try and algorithmically guess what was hidden behind a bunch of "fog" and got a giant bubble, and now their conclusion is "there's a giant bubble!" and not "Maybe we have a systematic error in our analysis..."? To be fair, it's possible there is a giant bubble, I don't know the math here, but it seems... suspect.
Anyway, this article sounds way cooler.
If employers have to provide more benefits to lower-level employees, that means they are spending less elsewhere. That displacement will likely come out of taxable commercial expenses, thus both taking tax money from the government and damaging the growth potential of that organization (reducing future taxable income).
Jobs like janitor/fry cook/night stocker are all great jobs for teens and college kids. They're terrible places to find yourself at 40. I wouldn't want to be part of society that encouraged people to spend 40 hours a week doing such menial labor when they're older.
Lastly, severance benefits in the US typically amount to unemployment pay. I personally know people in the US who have been living off of unemployment for over 2 years. This is exactly the kind of thing you are arguing in favor of here, and the kind of "welfare mom" I feel is an unnecessary burden on the government.
I kinda like it because if I'm not an incompetent moron, most of those things are none of my concern. I have all the stuff you listed, it's pretty much in my contract. Ultimately, I like to think that this just means that my tax dollars aren't wasted carrying along people who are too lazy to get good jobs.
But then, Europeans never seem to complain about "welfare moms," so maybe their system eliminates people feeding off the government? Also, instead of my tax dollars going to feed and shelter the poor (which is still something I don't think tax dollars should be wasted on) they go to bomb and pillage the poor somewhere else on the planet (which is hardly a defensible act). So, tax money is wasted either way, but at least it's mostly wasted giving hard working folk a (largely pointless) job.
Someone really needs to mod this up, or steal his link and post it up higher for instant karma. Heck, this link should be in the freakin' summary.
For those of us not up on the lingo.
Is atheism not an opinion on religion?
That's not very democratic of you. Isn't everyone in a democracy entitled to their own views and opinions?