The scapegoat scenÃrio doesn't seem the be the case here though. Starting a shooting incident with police a dumb idea and IMO best left to warlords in 3rd world countries.
I disagree that the original meaning behind the right to bear arms is/was lost. Even in it's original form as a declaration in a document drafted in the 1792, it was a compromise between representatives of the states at that time and the sending of a clear message that they where willing to work together despite their differences.
If you understand that rights are self-evident, you don't need the words written on a paper to know that you have them. And while I am an advocate for freedom including the right to bear arms, special power comes with extra responsibility. If people can't "bear arms" in a responsible way that does not damage their community, then it's right to clip those freedoms a bit. The problem is how, and knowing that we all pay the price for the irresponsibility of a few.
To clarify, the choice of targeting an audience at a sporting event as a political protest is a very very poor strategic choice for sending freedom message. It's a show of force rather than reason and for any individual who understands American culture it's asking for a place on death row. Nobody should tolerate an attitude like that.
If an individual is bent because he/she doesn't like the way things are done, they are free go pursue their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness elsewhere. If they feel they need to take action, they better have the backing of the community they live in so that a clear message can be sent in a constructive manner rather than a destructive one.
There is always a risk you will die, it's 100% guaranteed in one form or another. Whether it be a drunk driver, a bullet, a meteor or old age.
Justice is never denied, it's just misunderstood from time to time; I didn't read the article when I first posted and I don't watch much TV.
I don't pay for 10Gbs of storage or the other services that Google offers me to manage my emails. To me, that is free.
By expecting them to offer me a service with no benefits for themselves would the the equivalent of MS offering to pay you in exchange for you using Windows.
When you give your time to your community, you expect at least some personal gratification for your generosity, but you don't consider that gratification as a form of payment the community activities' organizers is paying you.
On the other hand, if you expect that you can use public highways, for example, as a "free" public offering. Perhaps it can be seen as not really "free" since the acceptance of such a benefit makes you a beneficiary of the public trust and the trustees thereof. Undivulged stipulations of that trust could impose obligations on any beneficiary; such a quid-pro-quo, even if not divulged, can be viewed as an exchange of valuable consideration. Not free.
Is that the type of "not free" you are trying to associate with Google?
I find that the people screaming words like "racist, or fascist" are normally carrying more of the pre-conceptual values related to racial, ethnic or socio-political origins than others they are likely to accuse.
If you have a gmail account, you are google's client and have agreed to their term of service. There is an exchange of benefits between you and Google even if money isn't directly exchanged. What matters is the exchange of consideration which is the equivalent of value.
I would contend that if you had to click through any term of service you can rightly claim you are a customer.
A suspect is not known to be guilty, only circumstantially involved in some way that draws attention the the possibility of guilty involvement, hence the meaning of suspect.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Maybe it's better to consider he/they are guilty until proven innocent. It can be sorted out later anyways, right?
I remember watching interview with a Reagan SS agent and a story about a kid who held a water pistol a "threatening manner" and almost got drilled. I suppose he would be a suspect worth taking out to avoid the risk these days.
It's better they call the drones in if they already haven't.
Your point about being able to identify souls is dubious for the following reason:
When the Soul Hunter identified Delenn -> Grey Council and proceded to try to capture her soul, it would make reasonable sense that he could have identified Sinclair as Valen just as easily and as such, Sinclair would be a much more valuable soul to collect...
If you mean to say that the Soul Hunter served only to bring the notion of souls to beyond a point of contention, they yes. And at the same time, emphasises another point of contention - the dynamics of post mortem transformation of the soul.
But even then, I don't see how that serves to develop the plot. Maybe if you can tie that in with the Inquisitor who calls himself Sebastian...
The problem with an ordinary Sci-Fi is that the viewer is left without much real meaning for complex on-screen ideas being conveyed, especially if such concepts are not properly developed. And even if they are, the non-geek doesn't have a reference point to put the minds imaginative centers to work with the ideas and interactions.
In B5 we see telepaths putting their fingers to the temples, squinting and even making "jedi" type hand genstures. Even though we see great plot setups for story-lines following the telepaths, that area was left rather somewhat untouched. How limited is audience interactivity/associability with these types of non-visual concepts on screen? The second part of the question is: Do you feel there are other/better ways to story-tell an interaction with a telepath? Maybe make their tell-tail a bit more musical? And lastly, does this difficulty make story-telling telepathic interactions overly burdensome or inviable?
The vorlon speaking was always over "music" and the screams when sighting a "shadow vessel" are possible starting points for the concept; it would have made perfect sense to show the similarity/parallel of the lesser telepaths to their "makers/engineers".
Overall, B5 is a great example of how a Sci-Fi should be done. I love the socio/political scenarios and the incorporation of religion and belief. I really liked the religious parallel made with sightings of Kosh. I didn't like the soul hunter, especially because the only attempt to create a dynamic character out of one was never followed up. The entire concept just plays with the idea of a soul existing, possibly as a being semi-tangible in an effort not to lose the audience with the concept. The presence of such a being does not further the character or plot development in any way.
The biggest change I would have made is to have the Shadows as only a different clan of Vorlon. They didn't need to be a different race of alien. They only need to be powerful ideal extremists. In that way, the possibilities of mending a rift can be more profound than them just agreeing to disagree and then accepting they are not needed anymore.
Actually, it's their pride that keeps them from adopting the platform. They feel the need to "eat their own dog food". Even if the dogs just don't want it anymore.
If their home grown platform is non-competitive/obsolete, it makes perfect sense to pick another platform so they can continue with their innovations.
Microsoft, innovations? Hahaha, that is a thing of the past.
I wonder why they went with Infra-red frequency light.
Seems to me that some higher-energy, shorter wavelength frequency would be more efficient. Something like a blue or violet laser, as they use in certain industrial apps. Better yet would be a laser in the UV frequencies.
What is the target market? Would be immortal to sent to welfare beneficiaries, can't send to govt officials. Middle class is shrinking... fast. It's difficult to get banks to monetize promissory notes but maybe that's the way, roll a credit swap...
He will just be ignored. For someone to charge him for entrapment would indirectly legitimize his attempt in some way. He will need to escalate the issue somehow until it is no longer just a "bug on the wall". At that point, he'll get swat, literally, especially if he has a registered firearm.
Did you know that putting in a bill of rights in the constitution was actually a compromise made so that 2 states would sign up?
In the 1770's and 1780's those rights where seen as unnecessary because they where "self-evident".
Today, we have the UN defining "Human Rights" for no other reason than to limit what is self-evident.
But in the end, with or without the paper, it makes no difference. The unfortunate truth is that you need a stick to back you up when someone doesn't agree with what you say. You can call the cops, draw your glock, fly B2 bombers over a neighboring country... what's the difference. If it's a big enough deal, you can always sort through the pieces afterwards, and it's nice to have a friend responsible for that task since you can be guaranteed no more than a slap on the wrists.
That's why we have the biggest military; not everyone agrees with the rhetoric but they can be persuaded to keep it to themselves. Today, the bits and bytes that flow over copper and fiber as an important part of our lives. We can't permit disruptions compromising those interests because that's just embarrassing.
To that end, the loophole was always there, it's just that there are only so many seats at the table. Either you are in, or you're out. There are rules and structure. You need to respect the human pecking order. Why do you think Bernie was the only big fish on Wall st to go to jail, of all the bankers?
And that's why the UN defines "human rights" in some publication of theirs. It's a way to put limits on something that is self-evident.
It's interesting that you use the word Masters, as though we were serfs to some subject. In fact, the term Citizen is a title of nobility that would support your thesis. The catch is that individual with titles of nobility like Officer or Senator have special privileges to perform the needs of their servitude whereas Citizen have none at all.
The idea is that a person pledges themselves to the service of their "master" when they take on the burdens of using such special privileges. Sometimes the ceremony for these types of transitions include taking on a title like Sir and being touched 3 times by a sword. Sometimes, it's not clear at all, merely presumed.
But try saying that you are an American and not a US Citizen to a passport agent. You will have your passport denied. You might even have your name added to some no-fly list. They even make you take an oath where you make such a declaration.
It is the reason we fall into the category of being an "insular possession" of the DC territory that the Federal government has complete jurisdiction over, we have become serfs to the Federal govt and its agents as they perform their role(s) for whomever they serve.
I doubt that. There is no clause that says only one individual can use a username/password.
But you could put up terms of service of your own for viewing your profile page.
"I agree that by viewing this profile, I have agreed that any information encountered is not to be a part of any direct or indirect employee evaluation, even if access was requested or obtained in a way that could suggest otherwise."
The public protest issue is one the really gets under my skin though.
While we are on the topic of voting and the "I voted" sticker, it occurred to me that, as consumers, what we choose to consume is rather like a vote. Businesses fail if they don't have a way to move their products or services. By choosing to consume certain product or service we perform the equivalent of "voting" for a firm by helping keep them in business.
In that light, by consuming a product that is manufactured by a company who outsourced its production facilities, we "vote" for outsourcing. We vote against using our own workforce. We vote for a degradation in the symbiosis between factory and worker/household in the micro-economy model diagram.
Organizations that choose that type of strategy depend on at least two things: 1. disorganization of the consumption of the public or that the irrationality of the image of consumption is more important than the reality. 2. The continuation of the nexus of greed (selfishness) in purchase decisions.
Games theory.
I'm not saying that capitalism should be abandoned, only that we, the people, should govern ourselves better. We should have made a bigger deal of Swartz before he had to pay the ultimate price. And since that's not possible anymore, we need to be ever more vigilant that it doesn't happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
Information is power, he who controls the information has more control over decisions being made.
This asymmetry of information is the evidence of their recent power grabing trend.
+1 to this judge for is call.
And such a claim would not be out of place. Google is my client as much as I am Googles.
It so happens that Google also has clients/customers in Germany. And they have received a formal request to start complying with local laws there.
I don't think it's such a problem. They have their translation software, and they can send auto replies like:
"Your email has been received, there are 1,343,343 requests ahead of you. Please be patient as we are in the process of replying to your email.
You can expedite your reply for urgent business by signing up for Google Vorteil. [link]Learn more[/link]"
Done deal.
Thanks for the details. I posted without RTFA.
Thanks. I posted my question without RTFA.
You are right, so far I've been protected from that type of suffering.
The scapegoat scenÃrio doesn't seem the be the case here though. Starting a shooting incident with police a dumb idea and IMO best left to warlords in 3rd world countries.
I disagree that the original meaning behind the right to bear arms is/was lost. Even in it's original form as a declaration in a document drafted in the 1792, it was a compromise between representatives of the states at that time and the sending of a clear message that they where willing to work together despite their differences.
If you understand that rights are self-evident, you don't need the words written on a paper to know that you have them. And while I am an advocate for freedom including the right to bear arms, special power comes with extra responsibility. If people can't "bear arms" in a responsible way that does not damage their community, then it's right to clip those freedoms a bit. The problem is how, and knowing that we all pay the price for the irresponsibility of a few.
To clarify, the choice of targeting an audience at a sporting event as a political protest is a very very poor strategic choice for sending freedom message. It's a show of force rather than reason and for any individual who understands American culture it's asking for a place on death row. Nobody should tolerate an attitude like that.
If an individual is bent because he/she doesn't like the way things are done, they are free go pursue their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness elsewhere. If they feel they need to take action, they better have the backing of the community they live in so that a clear message can be sent in a constructive manner rather than a destructive one.
There is always a risk you will die, it's 100% guaranteed in one form or another. Whether it be a drunk driver, a bullet, a meteor or old age.
Justice is never denied, it's just misunderstood from time to time; I didn't read the article when I first posted and I don't watch much TV.
Ok, asked and answered. Thanks.
I don't pay for 10Gbs of storage or the other services that Google offers me to manage my emails. To me, that is free.
By expecting them to offer me a service with no benefits for themselves would the the equivalent of MS offering to pay you in exchange for you using Windows.
When you give your time to your community, you expect at least some personal gratification for your generosity, but you don't consider that gratification as a form of payment the community activities' organizers is paying you.
On the other hand, if you expect that you can use public highways, for example, as a "free" public offering. Perhaps it can be seen as not really "free" since the acceptance of such a benefit makes you a beneficiary of the public trust and the trustees thereof. Undivulged stipulations of that trust could impose obligations on any beneficiary; such a quid-pro-quo, even if not divulged, can be viewed as an exchange of valuable consideration. Not free.
Is that the type of "not free" you are trying to associate with Google?
I'm not sure if irony is the right word but...
I find that the people screaming words like "racist, or fascist" are normally carrying more of the pre-conceptual values related to racial, ethnic or socio-political origins than others they are likely to accuse.
If you have a gmail account, you are google's client and have agreed to their term of service. There is an exchange of benefits between you and Google even if money isn't directly exchanged. What matters is the exchange of consideration which is the equivalent of value.
I would contend that if you had to click through any term of service you can rightly claim you are a customer.
How do they know they killed the right guy?
A suspect is not known to be guilty, only circumstantially involved in some way that draws attention the the possibility of guilty involvement, hence the meaning of suspect.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Maybe it's better to consider he/they are guilty until proven innocent. It can be sorted out later anyways, right?
I remember watching interview with a Reagan SS agent and a story about a kid who held a water pistol a "threatening manner" and almost got drilled. I suppose he would be a suspect worth taking out to avoid the risk these days.
It's better they call the drones in if they already haven't.
Blue team: Go!
Interesting point.
Your point about being able to identify souls is dubious for the following reason:
When the Soul Hunter identified Delenn -> Grey Council and proceded to try to capture her soul, it would make reasonable sense that he could have identified Sinclair as Valen just as easily and as such, Sinclair would be a much more valuable soul to collect...
If you mean to say that the Soul Hunter served only to bring the notion of souls to beyond a point of contention, they yes. And at the same time, emphasises another point of contention - the dynamics of post mortem transformation of the soul.
But even then, I don't see how that serves to develop the plot. Maybe if you can tie that in with the Inquisitor who calls himself Sebastian...
The problem with an ordinary Sci-Fi is that the viewer is left without much real meaning for complex on-screen ideas being conveyed, especially if such concepts are not properly developed. And even if they are, the non-geek doesn't have a reference point to put the minds imaginative centers to work with the ideas and interactions.
In B5 we see telepaths putting their fingers to the temples, squinting and even making "jedi" type hand genstures. Even though we see great plot setups for story-lines following the telepaths, that area was left rather somewhat untouched. How limited is audience interactivity/associability with these types of non-visual concepts on screen? The second part of the question is: Do you feel there are other/better ways to story-tell an interaction with a telepath? Maybe make their tell-tail a bit more musical? And lastly, does this difficulty make story-telling telepathic interactions overly burdensome or inviable?
The vorlon speaking was always over "music" and the screams when sighting a "shadow vessel" are possible starting points for the concept; it would have made perfect sense to show the similarity/parallel of the lesser telepaths to their "makers/engineers".
Overall, B5 is a great example of how a Sci-Fi should be done. I love the socio/political scenarios and the incorporation of religion and belief. I really liked the religious parallel made with sightings of Kosh. I didn't like the soul hunter, especially because the only attempt to create a dynamic character out of one was never followed up. The entire concept just plays with the idea of a soul existing, possibly as a being semi-tangible in an effort not to lose the audience with the concept. The presence of such a being does not further the character or plot development in any way.
The biggest change I would have made is to have the Shadows as only a different clan of Vorlon. They didn't need to be a different race of alien. They only need to be powerful ideal extremists. In that way, the possibilities of mending a rift can be more profound than them just agreeing to disagree and then accepting they are not needed anymore.
Actually, it's their pride that keeps them from adopting the platform. They feel the need to "eat their own dog food". Even if the dogs just don't want it anymore.
If their home grown platform is non-competitive/obsolete, it makes perfect sense to pick another platform so they can continue with their innovations.
Microsoft, innovations? Hahaha, that is a thing of the past.
I wonder why they went with Infra-red frequency light.
Seems to me that some higher-energy, shorter wavelength frequency would be more efficient. Something like a blue or violet laser, as they use in certain industrial apps. Better yet would be a laser in the UV frequencies.
Maybe the it's an inaccuracy in the article?
Nice! I was blind, but now I can see.
What is the target market? Would be immortal to sent to welfare beneficiaries, can't send to govt officials. Middle class is shrinking... fast. It's difficult to get banks to monetize promissory notes but maybe that's the way, roll a credit swap...
It won't even go that far.
He will just be ignored. For someone to charge him for entrapment would indirectly legitimize his attempt in some way. He will need to escalate the issue somehow until it is no longer just a "bug on the wall". At that point, he'll get swat, literally, especially if he has a registered firearm.
Not a joke, Heavens no!
Just ignored. Or at least parts of it...
Did you know that putting in a bill of rights in the constitution was actually a compromise made so that 2 states would sign up?
In the 1770's and 1780's those rights where seen as unnecessary because they where "self-evident".
Today, we have the UN defining "Human Rights" for no other reason than to limit what is self-evident.
But in the end, with or without the paper, it makes no difference. The unfortunate truth is that you need a stick to back you up when someone doesn't agree with what you say. You can call the cops, draw your glock, fly B2 bombers over a neighboring country... what's the difference. If it's a big enough deal, you can always sort through the pieces afterwards, and it's nice to have a friend responsible for that task since you can be guaranteed no more than a slap on the wrists.
That's why we have the biggest military; not everyone agrees with the rhetoric but they can be persuaded to keep it to themselves. Today, the bits and bytes that flow over copper and fiber as an important part of our lives. We can't permit disruptions compromising those interests because that's just embarrassing.
To that end, the loophole was always there, it's just that there are only so many seats at the table. Either you are in, or you're out. There are rules and structure. You need to respect the human pecking order. Why do you think Bernie was the only big fish on Wall st to go to jail, of all the bankers?
uhhh. That's easy. Money.
And that's why the UN defines "human rights" in some publication of theirs. It's a way to put limits on something that is self-evident.
It's interesting that you use the word Masters, as though we were serfs to some subject. In fact, the term Citizen is a title of nobility that would support your thesis. The catch is that individual with titles of nobility like Officer or Senator have special privileges to perform the needs of their servitude whereas Citizen have none at all.
The idea is that a person pledges themselves to the service of their "master" when they take on the burdens of using such special privileges. Sometimes the ceremony for these types of transitions include taking on a title like Sir and being touched 3 times by a sword. Sometimes, it's not clear at all, merely presumed.
But try saying that you are an American and not a US Citizen to a passport agent. You will have your passport denied. You might even have your name added to some no-fly list. They even make you take an oath where you make such a declaration.
It is the reason we fall into the category of being an "insular possession" of the DC territory that the Federal government has complete jurisdiction over, we have become serfs to the Federal govt and its agents as they perform their role(s) for whomever they serve.
You need to find a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute. This law is not for the benefit of mere mortals, only those who wield the stick.
Stupid ideas, unfortunately, stick because it boils down to who has the bigger stick. John Locke, welcome to the wilderness in the modern courtroom.
errr, algo^b^b^b^b software design.
I doubt that. There is no clause that says only one individual can use a username/password.
But you could put up terms of service of your own for viewing your profile page.
"I agree that by viewing this profile, I have agreed that any information encountered is not to be a part of any direct or indirect employee evaluation, even if access was requested or obtained in a way that could suggest otherwise."
Then you need a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute.
Good point. +1 to internet activism only.
The public protest issue is one the really gets under my skin though.
While we are on the topic of voting and the "I voted" sticker, it occurred to me that, as consumers, what we choose to consume is rather like a vote. Businesses fail if they don't have a way to move their products or services. By choosing to consume certain product or service we perform the equivalent of "voting" for a firm by helping keep them in business.
In that light, by consuming a product that is manufactured by a company who outsourced its production facilities, we "vote" for outsourcing. We vote against using our own workforce. We vote for a degradation in the symbiosis between factory and worker/household in the micro-economy model diagram.
Organizations that choose that type of strategy depend on at least two things: 1. disorganization of the consumption of the public or that the irrationality of the image of consumption is more important than the reality. 2. The continuation of the nexus of greed (selfishness) in purchase decisions.
Games theory.
I'm not saying that capitalism should be abandoned, only that we, the people, should govern ourselves better. We should have made a bigger deal of Swartz before he had to pay the ultimate price. And since that's not possible anymore, we need to be ever more vigilant that it doesn't happen again.
Please excuse the long winded off-topic.