OK great, so a 7 year old girl in one incident and a man in another. Are you really trying to say that because they didn't kill the entire family that it is OK?
Oh look, new article out about how the feds are using the data without warrants to harass people who look online to buy a pressure cooker. What a wonderful use of police resources. But I guess we can just write that off as not enough proof that the system is being abused by those in power. Since it is secret we cannot prove anything. But they don't have to prove anything to harass innocent citizens.
I think you are way to trusting. Power like this has been abused in the past and will continue to be abused. If I ran a bus load of nuns off a cliff, all I have to do is make it top secret information and nobody can do anything to me. Children being given radioactive drinking water in schools, woman having the uterus removed without their knowledge, injecting large numbers of black men with syphilis, all these things and more have been done by the US government. I am so glad you trust them, I don't.
We know they don't have sufficient controls. Everything they are doing is secret and illegal. Anybody with access can look up the phone calls and emails of anyone they want to without any permissions or warrants. I would say that is a severe lack of sufficient controls.
Why stop there. We shot one million Americans in the head. But it's ok because some of them were terrorists or criminals of same sort. We must be prepared to sacrifice everything to keep us safe.
They have been lying every time they open their mouths. Why would you believe they can't track communications between two Americans. Plus don't forget, they assume you are not American unless there is some thing that says otherwise, so you are already in the database at that point.
When they decide to look through the last 5 years of data in the database and round up anybody with Fox in their online name because that has been deemed the new scary communist thing then it becomes a problem. The data being collected only helps to look back in the past after acts have been done to see where connections are made. If they have suspicions of someone they can get a warrant. When they just grab everything it can be used later for anything they want to find and you can then be sent off to the concentration camps and disappeared.
Trust the system memory-manager, you are told. Trust the OS scheduler. And yet, only the application can truly know how and why it needs to use the memory and CPU processing resources.
PS the PS4 console from Sony, released later this year, allows as much 'to the metal' coding as possible, where the applications (ie., games) DO get to tell the underlying systems exactly how to behave. Top down semantics will allow this hardware to still be competitive in 5+ years time. The 'second guess the user' bottom up pseudo 'AI' semantics that will be controlling memory and thread scheduling on our ordinary computer devices in the same time period will need many times the computer power to even draw equal in performance.
For the PS4, which runs one game at a time and needs to have all the performance possible for that single application I think this is a great idea. For a general computer that is running many applications at once I can see problems. Each program that is installed will want to prioritize itself above everything else. Just look at the myriad of application tray icons that get installed and program updaters that are constantly running. Look at MS Office and how it pre-launches the program in the background so that it can start up quicker when you want to use it. If every application had control over the memory it took and the scheduler then you would have a dead lock and nothing would get processed.
It also assumes that the internet companies will want to play fair. Once they can determine the nature and destination of each and every packet, they can drop the ones that compete with their own services. Any idea that needs everyone to act fairly has serious flaws as in the real world that is not very realistic.
But then we just need to make smart floor drains that can connect to the internet and to the coffee maker etc. Then when the water over flows and the floor drain senses it, it can tell the fridge to order more food and call plumber and. . . Well I don't know what it could do, but it could do whatever you can imagine and more. [requisite sarcasm tag here]
That is wrong. My car cannot deactivate the front airbags. Honda Civic, airbags always active unless you have a mechanic remove it at the cost of big bucks.
I see one very large problem with applying "Aiding the Enemy" to this release when he wasn't directly giving the information to any enemies. When someone in the government releases a redacted document with those stupid black boxes covering the text that don't even stop you from copy-pasting the text to see what it is, they are also "Aiding the Enemy". So let's start applying that law back on the higher up government and military people who release this stuff.:-/
Manning chose to use none of those, and instead undiscriminately gave a ton of documents, most of which were meaningless and of no importance,
Meaningless and of no importance, and exposes the abuses of the classification system. So the very fact that they are meaningless and unimportant shows that there is reason to release them.
Not only was there plenty of damning evidence in those cables. There are many that are completely inane and have no reason to be classified. If your classification system just involves marking secret on everything then it isn't much use. In fact it make having a working democracy pretty difficult. How can the people in a democracy vote for what they want to happen when everything that happens is kept secret from them no matter how simple and mundane it is. There is another reason that the massive release of the cables has use, to show the abuse of the classification system. This topic was being discussed on the radio just this morning so it isn't something I am making up. It is an actual result of his leaking these documents and shows that his actions are still having an impact in helping drive a conversation about how this country should be run.
Except sustainable practices alone won't feed everyone on the planet.
Most farmers do use crop rotation and other sustainable tricks, but also use chemical fertilizers and other "nonsustainable" choices.
Hopefully farming practices continue to advance. But the organic only, "sustainable" only, no GMO, etc crowd tends not to want to advance farming, but take it back to yeoman level tech. Which is not sustainable unless you dramatically decrease the number of humans on the planet.
Perhaps you don't know what sustainable means. If you are not using sustainable practices then you will not be able to continue to grow food. Non-sustainable means you cannot continue the same process. If you run out of ways to grow food because you used up all the resources in the soil then the price of food will get very expensive and many people will starve to death.
Your example of the lions seems to be counter to what you wanted to show. If the male lion leaves the pride a new lions will take over his spot and kill off all his offspring. That is not too good for the strong males genes.
Sure, when cooked well the lobster is awesome and needs no butter. I can tell you that when cooked poorly no amount of butter will make it taste good. When I was in the Navy we would have a lobster day every couple of years or so. The smell alone would have kept me from eating it.
There are serious sustainability and scalability issues with the usual livestock.
There is no sustainability problem. The only problem is scalability. Of course, every food source has a scalability problem. It is just a matter of how many people you pack on the planet before population out strips your ability to produce food.
So maybe instead of trying to get us to eat bugs, we should just let the hungry people die. If I can afford to buy beef and chicken, then that's what I will eat. If others can only afford bugs, then so be it. I can tell you that I will go vegan before going bugan.
Yep. I remember a reporter for the Beijing Olympics seeing scorpion (with pictures) on a stick right at the sidewalk vendors there. They definitely eat insects there. (Although scorpion is actually an arachnid, I think it is close enough that people who eat one will eat the other.)
The pasteurization of milk inactivates the lactase found naturally in the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that lactose intolerant people don't make in their intestines. So some people that are lactose intolerant have found that they are able to drink raw milk.
Zimmerman was following Martin, and Martin was correct in fearing that his life was in danger. Martin reasonably defended himself.
It isn't illegal to follow someone. If you are in fear for your life from someone that isn't threatening you, you have serious problems. Perhaps the lawful thing to do would be call the police.
Put a gun in the situation and somebody gets killed. Zimmerman put a gun in the situation.
It's called a "concealed carry" permit, not a "wave a gun in anybody's face you want to" permit. Martin would not have know about the gun when he decided to turn back and attack another person on the street. He didn't call the police for help, he started a confrontation and tried to kill someone.
Zimmerman started a confrontation which led to Martin's death, and rejected the 911 operator's advice that he stay in the car. You have a right to kill somebody in self-defense, but if you started the confrontation, you don't have that right any more. It's homicide.
Your logic is so twisted that I think you would defend Martin even if he went into a school and shot up dozens of kids. Zimmerman didn't start a confrontation. He followed a criminal. When that criminal started the confrontation he defended his own life.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that Zimmerman was guilty of a low degree of homicide. He's guilty the way a driver can be guilty of homicide when he kills someone because of negligence or irresponsibility. If you carry a gun, you're accepting a lot of responsibility. The law says that if you don't do everything right, you can be guilty of criminal homicide. Zimmerman accepted that.
I do think that Zimmerman probably made some bad choices. And I think his choices led to the death of Martin. But he didn't break the law and didn't try to go kill a "creepy-ass cracker" like the actual criminal did. I think if you were actually on the jury you would have ended up finding him not guilty of any actual crimes. Just because you want someone to pay a price doesn't mean you can find a crime they committed. Have you listened to the juror that came out saying she felt he was responsible and wanted to find like you do but could not find any proof that he did anything wrong. Plus, don't forget who called the police. One of the two was acting lawfully and in the public interest, the other was out to kick someone's ass and possible commit a murder.
In at least some states, if you start a confrontation, and wind up having to use lethal force to defend yourself, you're still guilty of homicide. That's not a self-defense defense.
I am starting to think you don't even have the capability to think for yourself. I will even go so far as to call you a stupid fuck. Note, this is not illegal and you cannot come kill me for starting a confrontation. I can stand in front of you all day telling you how stupid you are without breaking the law. When you hit me, you have broken the law. See the difference? I'm sure you don't, at this point I am replying to your crazy drivel to prevent any one else who may be capable of thought from seeing your crazy writing and thinking that there is anything legitimate.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that Zimmerman had an obligation to act prudently and responsibly. It would have been prudent and responsible to follow the 911 operator's advice and stay in the car. If he's not acting prudently and responsibly, then he starts to get responsible for the consequences.
Once he stepped out of the car, and rejected that advice, he wasn't acting prudently and responsibly. He took an unnecessary risk.
If the consequence of taking an unnecessary risk is that you get your ass kicked by a black teenager who (reasonably) believes that you're threatening his life -- that's the risk you accepted when you (stupidly) stepped out of the car. You don't have a right t
You don't like it? Help them get justice. You seem to be doing the opposite.
Trayvon Martin did get his justice. He was a criminal gangster that snuck up on a neighborhood watch member who was checking out a suspicious person walking through the area. Don't forget that he sold illegal weapons and drugs. He tried to kill Zimmerman and we have an eye-witness to that effect. In the end, it isn't illegal or wrong to follow someone. It is illegal and wrong to attack someone, which Trayvon did.
Slashdot Mirror
OK great, so a 7 year old girl in one incident and a man in another. Are you really trying to say that because they didn't kill the entire family that it is OK?
That was just luck. Look at the examples where the swat team goes to the wrong address and the family does end up dead. Free country indeed!
Oh look, new article out about how the feds are using the data without warrants to harass people who look online to buy a pressure cooker. What a wonderful use of police resources. But I guess we can just write that off as not enough proof that the system is being abused by those in power. Since it is secret we cannot prove anything. But they don't have to prove anything to harass innocent citizens.
I think you are way to trusting. Power like this has been abused in the past and will continue to be abused. If I ran a bus load of nuns off a cliff, all I have to do is make it top secret information and nobody can do anything to me. Children being given radioactive drinking water in schools, woman having the uterus removed without their knowledge, injecting large numbers of black men with syphilis, all these things and more have been done by the US government. I am so glad you trust them, I don't.
We know they don't have sufficient controls. Everything they are doing is secret and illegal. Anybody with access can look up the phone calls and emails of anyone they want to without any permissions or warrants. I would say that is a severe lack of sufficient controls.
Why stop there. We shot one million Americans in the head. But it's ok because some of them were terrorists or criminals of same sort. We must be prepared to sacrifice everything to keep us safe.
Don't forget the Occupy Wall Street Protests. Those are considered terrorist activities.
They have been lying every time they open their mouths. Why would you believe they can't track communications between two Americans. Plus don't forget, they assume you are not American unless there is some thing that says otherwise, so you are already in the database at that point.
When they decide to look through the last 5 years of data in the database and round up anybody with Fox in their online name because that has been deemed the new scary communist thing then it becomes a problem. The data being collected only helps to look back in the past after acts have been done to see where connections are made. If they have suspicions of someone they can get a warrant. When they just grab everything it can be used later for anything they want to find and you can then be sent off to the concentration camps and disappeared.
Trust the system memory-manager, you are told. Trust the OS scheduler. And yet, only the application can truly know how and why it needs to use the memory and CPU processing resources.
PS the PS4 console from Sony, released later this year, allows as much 'to the metal' coding as possible, where the applications (ie., games) DO get to tell the underlying systems exactly how to behave. Top down semantics will allow this hardware to still be competitive in 5+ years time. The 'second guess the user' bottom up pseudo 'AI' semantics that will be controlling memory and thread scheduling on our ordinary computer devices in the same time period will need many times the computer power to even draw equal in performance.
For the PS4, which runs one game at a time and needs to have all the performance possible for that single application I think this is a great idea. For a general computer that is running many applications at once I can see problems. Each program that is installed will want to prioritize itself above everything else. Just look at the myriad of application tray icons that get installed and program updaters that are constantly running. Look at MS Office and how it pre-launches the program in the background so that it can start up quicker when you want to use it. If every application had control over the memory it took and the scheduler then you would have a dead lock and nothing would get processed.
It also assumes that the internet companies will want to play fair. Once they can determine the nature and destination of each and every packet, they can drop the ones that compete with their own services. Any idea that needs everyone to act fairly has serious flaws as in the real world that is not very realistic.
But then we just need to make smart floor drains that can connect to the internet and to the coffee maker etc. Then when the water over flows and the floor drain senses it, it can tell the fridge to order more food and call plumber and. . . Well I don't know what it could do, but it could do whatever you can imagine and more. [requisite sarcasm tag here]
That is wrong. My car cannot deactivate the front airbags. Honda Civic, airbags always active unless you have a mechanic remove it at the cost of big bucks.
Yep. No rational thoughts spewing from your keyboard, so no rational debate possible.
I see one very large problem with applying "Aiding the Enemy" to this release when he wasn't directly giving the information to any enemies. When someone in the government releases a redacted document with those stupid black boxes covering the text that don't even stop you from copy-pasting the text to see what it is, they are also "Aiding the Enemy". So let's start applying that law back on the higher up government and military people who release this stuff. :-/
Manning chose to use none of those, and instead undiscriminately gave a ton of documents, most of which were meaningless and of no importance,
Meaningless and of no importance, and exposes the abuses of the classification system. So the very fact that they are meaningless and unimportant shows that there is reason to release them.
Not only was there plenty of damning evidence in those cables. There are many that are completely inane and have no reason to be classified. If your classification system just involves marking secret on everything then it isn't much use. In fact it make having a working democracy pretty difficult. How can the people in a democracy vote for what they want to happen when everything that happens is kept secret from them no matter how simple and mundane it is. There is another reason that the massive release of the cables has use, to show the abuse of the classification system. This topic was being discussed on the radio just this morning so it isn't something I am making up. It is an actual result of his leaking these documents and shows that his actions are still having an impact in helping drive a conversation about how this country should be run.
Except sustainable practices alone won't feed everyone on the planet.
Most farmers do use crop rotation and other sustainable tricks, but also use chemical fertilizers and other "nonsustainable" choices.
Hopefully farming practices continue to advance. But the organic only, "sustainable" only, no GMO, etc crowd tends not to want to advance farming, but take it back to yeoman level tech. Which is not sustainable unless you dramatically decrease the number of humans on the planet.
Perhaps you don't know what sustainable means. If you are not using sustainable practices then you will not be able to continue to grow food. Non-sustainable means you cannot continue the same process. If you run out of ways to grow food because you used up all the resources in the soil then the price of food will get very expensive and many people will starve to death.
Your example of the lions seems to be counter to what you wanted to show. If the male lion leaves the pride a new lions will take over his spot and kill off all his offspring. That is not too good for the strong males genes.
Sure, when cooked well the lobster is awesome and needs no butter. I can tell you that when cooked poorly no amount of butter will make it taste good. When I was in the Navy we would have a lobster day every couple of years or so. The smell alone would have kept me from eating it.
There are serious sustainability and scalability issues with the usual livestock.
There is no sustainability problem. The only problem is scalability. Of course, every food source has a scalability problem. It is just a matter of how many people you pack on the planet before population out strips your ability to produce food.
So maybe instead of trying to get us to eat bugs, we should just let the hungry people die. If I can afford to buy beef and chicken, then that's what I will eat. If others can only afford bugs, then so be it. I can tell you that I will go vegan before going bugan.
Yep. I remember a reporter for the Beijing Olympics seeing scorpion (with pictures) on a stick right at the sidewalk vendors there. They definitely eat insects there. (Although scorpion is actually an arachnid, I think it is close enough that people who eat one will eat the other.)
The pasteurization of milk inactivates the lactase found naturally in the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that lactose intolerant people don't make in their intestines. So some people that are lactose intolerant have found that they are able to drink raw milk.
Zimmerman was following Martin, and Martin was correct in fearing that his life was in danger. Martin reasonably defended himself.
It isn't illegal to follow someone. If you are in fear for your life from someone that isn't threatening you, you have serious problems. Perhaps the lawful thing to do would be call the police.
Put a gun in the situation and somebody gets killed. Zimmerman put a gun in the situation.
It's called a "concealed carry" permit, not a "wave a gun in anybody's face you want to" permit. Martin would not have know about the gun when he decided to turn back and attack another person on the street. He didn't call the police for help, he started a confrontation and tried to kill someone.
Zimmerman started a confrontation which led to Martin's death, and rejected the 911 operator's advice that he stay in the car. You have a right to kill somebody in self-defense, but if you started the confrontation, you don't have that right any more. It's homicide.
Your logic is so twisted that I think you would defend Martin even if he went into a school and shot up dozens of kids. Zimmerman didn't start a confrontation. He followed a criminal. When that criminal started the confrontation he defended his own life.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that Zimmerman was guilty of a low degree of homicide. He's guilty the way a driver can be guilty of homicide when he kills someone because of negligence or irresponsibility. If you carry a gun, you're accepting a lot of responsibility. The law says that if you don't do everything right, you can be guilty of criminal homicide. Zimmerman accepted that.
I do think that Zimmerman probably made some bad choices. And I think his choices led to the death of Martin. But he didn't break the law and didn't try to go kill a "creepy-ass cracker" like the actual criminal did. I think if you were actually on the jury you would have ended up finding him not guilty of any actual crimes. Just because you want someone to pay a price doesn't mean you can find a crime they committed. Have you listened to the juror that came out saying she felt he was responsible and wanted to find like you do but could not find any proof that he did anything wrong. Plus, don't forget who called the police. One of the two was acting lawfully and in the public interest, the other was out to kick someone's ass and possible commit a murder.
In at least some states, if you start a confrontation, and wind up having to use lethal force to defend yourself, you're still guilty of homicide. That's not a self-defense defense.
I am starting to think you don't even have the capability to think for yourself. I will even go so far as to call you a stupid fuck. Note, this is not illegal and you cannot come kill me for starting a confrontation. I can stand in front of you all day telling you how stupid you are without breaking the law. When you hit me, you have broken the law. See the difference? I'm sure you don't, at this point I am replying to your crazy drivel to prevent any one else who may be capable of thought from seeing your crazy writing and thinking that there is anything legitimate.
If I were on the jury, I would have decided that Zimmerman had an obligation to act prudently and responsibly. It would have been prudent and responsible to follow the 911 operator's advice and stay in the car. If he's not acting prudently and responsibly, then he starts to get responsible for the consequences.
Once he stepped out of the car, and rejected that advice, he wasn't acting prudently and responsibly. He took an unnecessary risk.
If the consequence of taking an unnecessary risk is that you get your ass kicked by a black teenager who (reasonably) believes that you're threatening his life -- that's the risk you accepted when you (stupidly) stepped out of the car. You don't have a right t
You don't like it? Help them get justice. You seem to be doing the opposite.
Trayvon Martin did get his justice. He was a criminal gangster that snuck up on a neighborhood watch member who was checking out a suspicious person walking through the area. Don't forget that he sold illegal weapons and drugs. He tried to kill Zimmerman and we have an eye-witness to that effect. In the end, it isn't illegal or wrong to follow someone. It is illegal and wrong to attack someone, which Trayvon did.