Regal Cinema et al. are not really worried about terror strikes. Muslim terrorists have made threats against various movies for decades and it hasn't stopped anything from being shown, and this is from groups that have proven experience blowing things up.
What these companies are in fact scared shitless is the kind of cyberattack that Sony suffered. As bad as Sony security might have been, I guarantee it was heads and shoulders above what any of these theater chains have in place. Sony was able to shrug off millions in damages, but for AMC it could be lights out. At the very least it would beat out the profits of showing a mediocre comedy. This is why they're scared to show the interview - concerns about "terror attacks" are a smokescreen.
The article actually seemed well researched, and involved interviewing or questioning at least a dozen people in the field. I'm pretty sure they used google somewhere in the process. I realize it's hip to bash reported for lack of thoroughness, but your comment seems out of place, as the New Yorker is not usually one to skimp on research.
Did you read the article? In it they talk about a process to make graphene from anthracite coal with a 25% yield rate. The problem is not making graphene, any idiot with a pencil can do that, it's making large sheets of graphene. They go over this more than once.
You really didn't read the article, did you?
All of the arguments here about "suppressing knowledge" are incredibly off base. No knowledge is being suppressed, just a particular presentation of that knowledge is being dis-associated with a particular school. This is not research, these are lectures on established academic topics. The man in in question is free to post his lectures elsewhere, and for its part I am sure that MIT has or will soon have alternate lectures available on the same topics.
Whether the allegations are founded or not is certainly a question (one which I am sure is answerable), but let's not pretend this is some sort of massive crime against knowledge akin to a book-burning. MIT is exercising their right not to be associated with this individual based on their view of his character. That's all.
Then the OP has used the zombie survivor fallacy, assuming that what he uses will be what will survive. Chances are every site he visits, including this one, would be part of the 99% that is gone. Unless his fantasy web is some sort of early 90s Geocities flashback, it requires advertising to exist.
You don't seem to realize most cities do not use medallions. Also the concept of regulations for carrying people around for money predates cars by a longshot. Take a look at hackney coaches and you'll see a slew of regulations, dating back to the 1600's. I'm not sure why you would think regulating things, especially in cities, is some kind of new concept.
I don't think he's bemoaning the loss of crackhouses, just pointing out that even the worst of the low income housing stock is being converted. Soon there won't be anywhere for low-income people to live, and if you think that just includes criminals, you're foolish. It includes service workers, recent immigrants, and artists. Without those groups, San Francisco will no longer be a very attractive place to live.
This seems on the balance to be much less accurate than the "Ladies' Home Journal" 100 year predictions we were talking about a few years back, and I recall those being kind of ridiculed. I suppose it's all a matter of authorial intent: do we want to play up the predictor as a visionary or play down the foresight of our ancestors to assuage our insecurity?
People have been attached to tools as long as there have been tools. The more crucial the tool is to your job/survival the more you grow attached to it.
I think this old Bill Maudin cartoon sums it up:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbegfzWUtg1rhjbado1_500.jpg
No, no , a thousand times no. You really think that a dedicated troll is going to give in to your arguments? He isn't in this to win, he's in it to make as much disruption as possible. You'll respond, and 15 other people will respond, and the troll will just rephrase his argument and repeat it. He doesn't care that it doesn't make sense, in fact he knows it's wrong, but he'll just say it again. His game is literally this: to make you type as much as possible with as little effort on his part as necessary.
If you see a troll post, treat it like an Xbox 360. Just do a 360 and walk away.
I wish someone would mod this up, because this is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about. How are you supposed to have any reasonable debate about anything when this guy is guaranteed to show up to spout of this shit?
It's true... Looking at the right and the left right now you can see them subtly trying to steer the debate back to the same old "scandals", and away from this story. This is not the time for partisan politics, I'm a die hard lefty and I would love to see the administration taken to task for this.
There's a very real chance that this is a "leak" designed on the fly to discredit those currently talking about the verizon leak. If that is the case, it well may backfire as I doubt they will actually be able to discredit it in the public's perception, it's just too plausible. Assuming it is a false leak, they might also use it to put pressure on Google et al to cooperate, a "Everyone thinks you're a ho so now you might as well sleep with me, and I'll look after you" kinda thing. Or it could be a total hoax, which changes nothing except where it came from.
and Muslims are supposed to be better than dragging burned mutilated corpses through streets. Just pointing out that your point B is irrelevant since America is as much represented by these soldiers as the Muslim population is represented by that mob in Fallujah.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US Marine Corps doesn't represent the US? Maybe you think they just happen to be over there on vacation, but I'm pretty sure they were sent, armed, paid by the the US government. They are acting on the authority of the United States of America, and as such everything they do, good or bad, reflects on the integrity and honor of the United States, and the Corps as well. If this was some group of jackoff civilians in Detroit you might have some kind of point, but when it comes to soldiers, you don't.
Wow, this is some poor reporting. At first I thought the summary was to blame, but no, the articles themselves have it wrong. Facebook is being cited in 33% of all British divorces, but not as the cause. When they say cited, they mean just that: That something from Facebook was brought up in the courtroom. That could be, and in fact seems to frequently be something from well after the couple has separated, brought up as part of custody or property hearings.
Don't pick a fight with a big company or with people with money or power. Great. In other words, if you are the small man, you are fucked.
This is actually very true. As the small man, you need to do one of two things: 1) Go get money and power and come back later 2) Find someone sympathetic to your cause who has money or power
Some one needs to drop some mod points on this post, it should be "+5 insightful" with a flashing neon border. Examples of this kind of regulation are all too common, where business secretly welcomes regulation just so the government can play the heavy and they can pretend that they had no choice but to comply. Smoking bans are are good example. What restaurant wants to tell loyal customers that they can't smoke because they've chosen to cater to a larger contigent of nonsmokers? It's much easier if smoking is banned in all restaurants, and then it's not your fault if a customer can't light up.
I'm going to post this, even though it's going to be waaaay down where nobody sees it, just because it needs to be in here somewhere.
For starters, yes this bureaucrat is being a dick. However, I submit that he does not really think that David Cox made on his own a traffic report that is of "engineering quality". As people have pointed out, in this circumstance it would not be a crime.
What he is most likely thinks is that David Cox had an engineer produce an "engineering quality" traffic report, and the said engineer delivered it to Mr. Cox unsealed. This is not okay. I'm not sure about NC, but in Virginia if you are a PE, and you do engineering work, you must seal it (confirming it as your work product). This is an important requirement that helps to ensure the quality of work done by PEs. A PE who prepared an anonomys report could be in serious trouble with the licensing board.
This is the real angle Mr. Lacey is driving at, the other is just trying to put some kind of pressure on Mr. Cox to divulge where he got his help from. Notice the statement that Mr. Cox has refused to say who worked with him on the report, and probably won't, since they really have no leverage on him. All the same, there's likely and engineer down there sweating a bit, wanting this thing to blow over.
Calm down, no one's trying to insult middle America. You've completely missed the parent's point.
Yes, there are very remote areas in the US, and it's very hard to get services to these locaations. But comparativly few people live in these areas. (By the 2000 census, only 20% of the population lives in "rural" areas.) Even when you look at Appalachia, you still have cites: Chattanooga, Charleston, and Pittsburgh are a few. So when someone says "oh, 60% of America's internet access sucks because America is too spread out" it's crap. America may be spread out, but Americans by and large arn't.
Why is it that for some, every time something negative happens for Wikileaks, there must be a conspiracy that is behind it.
1. When the first accusations were leverage against Assange for rape; many were screaming that the CIA was behind it.
2. When Amazon stop hosting Wikileaks, the government MUST HAVE been behind it.
3. When Paypal froze Wikileak's account, more government pressure.
And now this. Could it have occurred to those people that the US government isn't behind every one of those things?
I know, right? Next week when Assange dies in a car crash, they'll probably blame that on a conspiracy too.
Slashdot Mirror
Regal Cinema et al. are not really worried about terror strikes. Muslim terrorists have made threats against various movies for decades and it hasn't stopped anything from being shown, and this is from groups that have proven experience blowing things up.
What these companies are in fact scared shitless is the kind of cyberattack that Sony suffered. As bad as Sony security might have been, I guarantee it was heads and shoulders above what any of these theater chains have in place. Sony was able to shrug off millions in damages, but for AMC it could be lights out. At the very least it would beat out the profits of showing a mediocre comedy. This is why they're scared to show the interview - concerns about "terror attacks" are a smokescreen.
Actually it is..most CA crops are grown for export.
The article actually seemed well researched, and involved interviewing or questioning at least a dozen people in the field. I'm pretty sure they used google somewhere in the process. I realize it's hip to bash reported for lack of thoroughness, but your comment seems out of place, as the New Yorker is not usually one to skimp on research.
Did you read the article? In it they talk about a process to make graphene from anthracite coal with a 25% yield rate. The problem is not making graphene, any idiot with a pencil can do that, it's making large sheets of graphene. They go over this more than once. You really didn't read the article, did you?
All of the arguments here about "suppressing knowledge" are incredibly off base. No knowledge is being suppressed, just a particular presentation of that knowledge is being dis-associated with a particular school. This is not research, these are lectures on established academic topics. The man in in question is free to post his lectures elsewhere, and for its part I am sure that MIT has or will soon have alternate lectures available on the same topics. Whether the allegations are founded or not is certainly a question (one which I am sure is answerable), but let's not pretend this is some sort of massive crime against knowledge akin to a book-burning. MIT is exercising their right not to be associated with this individual based on their view of his character. That's all.
Then the OP has used the zombie survivor fallacy, assuming that what he uses will be what will survive. Chances are every site he visits, including this one, would be part of the 99% that is gone. Unless his fantasy web is some sort of early 90s Geocities flashback, it requires advertising to exist.
You don't seem to realize most cities do not use medallions. Also the concept of regulations for carrying people around for money predates cars by a longshot. Take a look at hackney coaches and you'll see a slew of regulations, dating back to the 1600's. I'm not sure why you would think regulating things, especially in cities, is some kind of new concept.
I don't think he's bemoaning the loss of crackhouses, just pointing out that even the worst of the low income housing stock is being converted. Soon there won't be anywhere for low-income people to live, and if you think that just includes criminals, you're foolish. It includes service workers, recent immigrants, and artists. Without those groups, San Francisco will no longer be a very attractive place to live.
This seems on the balance to be much less accurate than the "Ladies' Home Journal" 100 year predictions we were talking about a few years back, and I recall those being kind of ridiculed. I suppose it's all a matter of authorial intent: do we want to play up the predictor as a visionary or play down the foresight of our ancestors to assuage our insecurity?
People have been attached to tools as long as there have been tools. The more crucial the tool is to your job/survival the more you grow attached to it. I think this old Bill Maudin cartoon sums it up: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbegfzWUtg1rhjbado1_500.jpg
No, no , a thousand times no. You really think that a dedicated troll is going to give in to your arguments? He isn't in this to win, he's in it to make as much disruption as possible. You'll respond, and 15 other people will respond, and the troll will just rephrase his argument and repeat it. He doesn't care that it doesn't make sense, in fact he knows it's wrong, but he'll just say it again. His game is literally this: to make you type as much as possible with as little effort on his part as necessary. If you see a troll post, treat it like an Xbox 360. Just do a 360 and walk away.
I wish someone would mod this up, because this is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about. How are you supposed to have any reasonable debate about anything when this guy is guaranteed to show up to spout of this shit?
It's true... Looking at the right and the left right now you can see them subtly trying to steer the debate back to the same old "scandals", and away from this story. This is not the time for partisan politics, I'm a die hard lefty and I would love to see the administration taken to task for this.
There's a very real chance that this is a "leak" designed on the fly to discredit those currently talking about the verizon leak. If that is the case, it well may backfire as I doubt they will actually be able to discredit it in the public's perception, it's just too plausible. Assuming it is a false leak, they might also use it to put pressure on Google et al to cooperate, a "Everyone thinks you're a ho so now you might as well sleep with me, and I'll look after you" kinda thing. Or it could be a total hoax, which changes nothing except where it came from.
and Muslims are supposed to be better than dragging burned mutilated corpses through streets. Just pointing out that your point B is irrelevant since America is as much represented by these soldiers as the Muslim population is represented by that mob in Fallujah.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US Marine Corps doesn't represent the US? Maybe you think they just happen to be over there on vacation, but I'm pretty sure they were sent, armed, paid by the the US government. They are acting on the authority of the United States of America, and as such everything they do, good or bad, reflects on the integrity and honor of the United States, and the Corps as well. If this was some group of jackoff civilians in Detroit you might have some kind of point, but when it comes to soldiers, you don't.
Wow, this is some poor reporting. At first I thought the summary was to blame, but no, the articles themselves have it wrong. Facebook is being cited in 33% of all British divorces, but not as the cause. When they say cited, they mean just that: That something from Facebook was brought up in the courtroom. That could be, and in fact seems to frequently be something from well after the couple has separated, brought up as part of custody or property hearings.
Don't pick a fight with a big company or with people with money or power. Great. In other words, if you are the small man, you are fucked.
This is actually very true. As the small man, you need to do one of two things:
1) Go get money and power and come back later
2) Find someone sympathetic to your cause who has money or power
Dave with a V chose option #2
Let's think a moment here who has it the worst. The poor guys in the 6.25% who still have to work at 80.
Though one 1 out of 4 of them will live to 110, so I guess it isn't all bad.
Man, if you're wxxxxxg, I don't want to hear about it.
Some one needs to drop some mod points on this post, it should be "+5 insightful" with a flashing neon border. Examples of this kind of regulation are all too common, where business secretly welcomes regulation just so the government can play the heavy and they can pretend that they had no choice but to comply. Smoking bans are are good example. What restaurant wants to tell loyal customers that they can't smoke because they've chosen to cater to a larger contigent of nonsmokers? It's much easier if smoking is banned in all restaurants, and then it's not your fault if a customer can't light up.
Mod parent +1d10, exploding
I'm going to post this, even though it's going to be waaaay down where nobody sees it, just because it needs to be in here somewhere.
For starters, yes this bureaucrat is being a dick. However, I submit that he does not really think that David Cox made on his own a traffic report that is of "engineering quality". As people have pointed out, in this circumstance it would not be a crime.
What he is most likely thinks is that David Cox had an engineer produce an "engineering quality" traffic report, and the said engineer delivered it to Mr. Cox unsealed. This is not okay. I'm not sure about NC, but in Virginia if you are a PE, and you do engineering work, you must seal it (confirming it as your work product). This is an important requirement that helps to ensure the quality of work done by PEs. A PE who prepared an anonomys report could be in serious trouble with the licensing board.
This is the real angle Mr. Lacey is driving at, the other is just trying to put some kind of pressure on Mr. Cox to divulge where he got his help from. Notice the statement that Mr. Cox has refused to say who worked with him on the report, and probably won't, since they really have no leverage on him. All the same, there's likely and engineer down there sweating a bit, wanting this thing to blow over.
The older I get, the less I like to jump.
Sadly, I've found this true IRL as well.
Calm down, no one's trying to insult middle America. You've completely missed the parent's point.
Yes, there are very remote areas in the US, and it's very hard to get services to these locaations. But comparativly few people live in these areas. (By the 2000 census, only 20% of the population lives in "rural" areas.) Even when you look at Appalachia, you still have cites: Chattanooga, Charleston, and Pittsburgh are a few. So when someone says "oh, 60% of America's internet access sucks because America is too spread out" it's crap. America may be spread out, but Americans by and large arn't.
Why is it that for some, every time something negative happens for Wikileaks, there must be a conspiracy that is behind it. 1. When the first accusations were leverage against Assange for rape; many were screaming that the CIA was behind it. 2. When Amazon stop hosting Wikileaks, the government MUST HAVE been behind it. 3. When Paypal froze Wikileak's account, more government pressure. And now this. Could it have occurred to those people that the US government isn't behind every one of those things?
I know, right? Next week when Assange dies in a car crash, they'll probably blame that on a conspiracy too.