And if you've got several $500 cars to choose from, all of which are adequate to your vehicular needs, then you start deciding them based on more subjective factors, like whether you like how it drives, or cupholders.
I'd say it's more likely that the government itself wanted the Middle East - most likely Iran - to be certain of the existence of the possibility that nukes will be aimed at them. If there's one thing that we learned in the Cold War, it's that the threat of nuclear force is far more effective than the exercise of nuclear force.
At the same time, the government wanted to be discreet about it. A front-page spread on every newspaper in the country blaring "NUKES ARE POINTED AT IRAN" would not be a good way to subtly remind Iran that America hasn't forgotten its nuclear stockpile. The (probably overblown) backlash stirred by the inevitably scandalous tones of such an article could lead to any number of scenarios in which the nukes are removed from Barksdale, most of which leave the situation worse than if there had never been any in the first place.
However, a "leak" documenting government incompetence is far more likely to be taken at face value. People love to think that the Bush administration, from top to bottom, has no idea what the hell it's doing. If people see something that confirms this bias, they're not likely to think further. This is a double whammy - not only was the government too stupid to know where its nukes were, but they were also too stupid to keep it bottled up!
The right people, however - and a few of the wrong ones like you and me, but not so many that we're likely to stir up that great overreactionary national moral panic - are capable of seeing the real meaning behind the message: there are definitely nukes in the base that points at the Middle East, and the government wants people to know this without it being spun against them.
The police should uphold the law as it is now. That's what they're there for, and that's why the law exists. If the law is a bad law, then it is the duty of the electorate to change it - not for the police to take the law into their own hands.
Bruce Schneier: By today's rules, I can carry on liquids in quantities of three ounces or less, unless they're in larger bottles. But I can carry on multiple three-ounce bottles. Or a single larger bottle with a non-prescription medicine label, like contact lens fluid. It all has to fit inside a one-quart plastic bag, except for that large bottle of contact lens fluid. And if you confiscate my liquids, you're going to toss them into a large pile right next to the screening station -- which you would never do if anyone thought they were actually dangerous.
Can you please convince me there's not an Office for Annoying Air Travelers making this sort of stuff up?
Kip Hawley: Screening ideas are indeed thought up by the Office for Annoying Air Travelers and vetted through the Directorate for Confusion and Complexity, and then we review them to insure that there are sufficient unintended irritating consequences so that the blogosphere is constantly fueled....
And they really seem to get into the details of airport security. Certainly doesn't seem like PR fluff, could be an interesting read.
Any game whose developers considered the flood of racial epithets, pathetic enraged profanity, and inane babble that inevitably results from voice chat vital is a game that I don't play. If I can't shut 'em off and still be effective, it's a deal-breaker. I don't want to hear your shit.
I think maybe you're missing out on the point of it. The idea is that the people who want to see it donate, and then when there's enough money to make the show, they use that money as the entire budget. There's plenty of ways it can go wrong, but worrying whether you're gonna waste your money isn't one of them. The only initial risk is coming up with the pilot, as I see it.
Don't be ridiculous. All game movies, ever, are terrible and fundamentally flawed, no matter how talented and interested the people making them, or how fertile the source material is. Didn't you get the memo?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there is scientific consensus to the effect that anthropogenic global warming exists, but there was not a consensus as to whether anthropogenic global warming was a grave crisis requiring decisive action. This is honest ignorance on my part.
So, then, the problem is that the photos are being given away by a popular service. Obviously, then, only unpopular services should be allowed to give away millions of photos of public places!
Look, either everyone should be allowed to take and give away as many photos as they can afford, or nobody should be. Which is it?
So, in your mind, the difference between Google's photographs and photographs taken by any old person is... that in the former case, somebody intends to use them to make money (as if an individual would never use them for the same purpose)? Or is it that in the former case, there's a whole bunch of pictures (because of course an individual would never take multiple pictures)? Or is it that Google's photographs are being given away to anyone who wants them (which an individual who isn't looking to make money would never, ever do)?
None of those make a whole lot of sense. So the problem you have isn't that people are taking the pictures, but what they're using them for. So how, exactly, do you propose to stop burglars from using photographs of houses?
...but isn't it about time that the concept of the public library was taken online? And I don't mean just public domain works, like Project Gutenberg is doing (though of course, if the copyright term weren't so long, public domain only would be viable), but for-real honest-to-god reading books, promoting public literacy, online.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you've got several $500 cars to choose from, all of which are adequate to your vehicular needs, then you start deciding them based on more subjective factors, like whether you like how it drives, or cupholders.
Alternately, the message could be intended for somebody else entirely. And, again, there's always the possibility that I'm overthinking it.
I'd say it's more likely that the government itself wanted the Middle East - most likely Iran - to be certain of the existence of the possibility that nukes will be aimed at them. If there's one thing that we learned in the Cold War, it's that the threat of nuclear force is far more effective than the exercise of nuclear force.
At the same time, the government wanted to be discreet about it. A front-page spread on every newspaper in the country blaring "NUKES ARE POINTED AT IRAN" would not be a good way to subtly remind Iran that America hasn't forgotten its nuclear stockpile. The (probably overblown) backlash stirred by the inevitably scandalous tones of such an article could lead to any number of scenarios in which the nukes are removed from Barksdale, most of which leave the situation worse than if there had never been any in the first place.
However, a "leak" documenting government incompetence is far more likely to be taken at face value. People love to think that the Bush administration, from top to bottom, has no idea what the hell it's doing. If people see something that confirms this bias, they're not likely to think further. This is a double whammy - not only was the government too stupid to know where its nukes were, but they were also too stupid to keep it bottled up!
The right people, however - and a few of the wrong ones like you and me, but not so many that we're likely to stir up that great overreactionary national moral panic - are capable of seeing the real meaning behind the message: there are definitely nukes in the base that points at the Middle East, and the government wants people to know this without it being spun against them.
Alternately, I'm reading too much into things.
Plus there was that one puzzle/maze/trivia game in one of the releases of Encarta. Good times.
You want to suggest that it would be preferable to give individual law enforcement officers authority to determine what is or is not against the law?
The police should uphold the law as it is now. That's what they're there for, and that's why the law exists. If the law is a bad law, then it is the duty of the electorate to change it - not for the police to take the law into their own hands.
"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, and the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker
Only perceptive if it's true, I'm afraid.
Yep. He sure is. Perceptive, aren't you?
And they really seem to get into the details of airport security. Certainly doesn't seem like PR fluff, could be an interesting read.
Any game whose developers considered the flood of racial epithets, pathetic enraged profanity, and inane babble that inevitably results from voice chat vital is a game that I don't play. If I can't shut 'em off and still be effective, it's a deal-breaker. I don't want to hear your shit.
I think maybe you're missing out on the point of it. The idea is that the people who want to see it donate, and then when there's enough money to make the show, they use that money as the entire budget. There's plenty of ways it can go wrong, but worrying whether you're gonna waste your money isn't one of them. The only initial risk is coming up with the pilot, as I see it.
Would that just be, um, Maxis?
Don't be ridiculous. All game movies, ever, are terrible and fundamentally flawed, no matter how talented and interested the people making them, or how fertile the source material is. Didn't you get the memo?
Correct, you can't vote to determine whether it exists. However, you can vote to determine what, if anything, should be done about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there is scientific consensus to the effect that anthropogenic global warming exists, but there was not a consensus as to whether anthropogenic global warming was a grave crisis requiring decisive action. This is honest ignorance on my part.
I don't know, but if we're going to steal it we're running out of time!
Then they don't deserve to be called "episodes."
This is the reason that people think Pluto should be a planet:
Did you learn it before you were ten years old? If yes, it can not ever change.
Look, either everyone should be allowed to take and give away as many photos as they can afford, or nobody should be. Which is it?
I think we're gonna need another Mr. Wizard!
No. This is Slashdot, what do you expect?
So, in your mind, the difference between Google's photographs and photographs taken by any old person is... that in the former case, somebody intends to use them to make money (as if an individual would never use them for the same purpose)? Or is it that in the former case, there's a whole bunch of pictures (because of course an individual would never take multiple pictures)? Or is it that Google's photographs are being given away to anyone who wants them (which an individual who isn't looking to make money would never, ever do)?
None of those make a whole lot of sense. So the problem you have isn't that people are taking the pictures, but what they're using them for. So how, exactly, do you propose to stop burglars from using photographs of houses?
...but isn't it about time that the concept of the public library was taken online? And I don't mean just public domain works, like Project Gutenberg is doing (though of course, if the copyright term weren't so long, public domain only would be viable), but for-real honest-to-god reading books, promoting public literacy, online.