...and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents.
I want to know what was the context in which this was asked. Everyone that has handled a firearm has heard that he/she should treat every gun as if it is loaded, even if it isn't. It is an idea to add safety. It doesn't mean a gun without ammunition will fire. However, if a gun is believed to be clear of all ammunition and it is not, one does not have to worry about causing damage or injury. Similarly soldiers are in an area in which the enemy dresses the same as civilians that are not taking part in the battle. This means, to avoid surprise attack, one must consider that the innocent looking civilian across the street is not so innocent and is preparing to ambush our soldiers. Am I saying all civilians should be fought and shot, as if they were insurgents in a battle? No. I am saying that soldiers treating civilians with the same concept of suspicion and reserve while they are on patrol is not unreasonable to protect their lives. Depending on the context of the question and the situations to which the question is referring, answers can be different when being asked how civilians should be handled.
I suspect this is yet another project in which a company asked, "can we do it?" without asking, "should we do it?" I doubt much of a market exists for users that want to run more than one OS on a cell phone. Also, abstraction layer the company and article speak of sounds similar to the Java virtual machine, but on a slightly lower level. I am not very familiar with complex mobile devices, but can see very little benefit in creating another layer of abstraction at a lower level to simply allow quicker development of programs, when developers can already do that with Java if they want programs portable amongst devices.
Lets see here.... they get complaints that they favor one candidate, but they don't check, and if necessary correct their mistake, until after the election is over. This gave more attention to one candidate throughout the campaign. After the election is over they check what several people have obviously been claiming for a while (if a significant number hadn't claimed it, the paper wouldn't have spent time to check) and discover they did favor a candidate that, coincidentally, will take office next year. Oh, oops.
I am not saying something as stupid as they are responsible for Obama's victory, but extra publicity from a major news paper won't hurt if a candidate is trying to get in the public's eye. The fact that they didn't check their bias until after the election reflects poorly on the paper, IMHO.
Car manufacturers occasionally make concept cars that look neat but have no real purpose other than drawing public attention and possibly testing ideas. They are not practical and do not serve any real purpose for the general public. This card is simply the concept car of video cards. It draws public attention to the company (being on slashdot definitely draw attention) and it tests the idea of putting a large potential for processing capabilities used by movie makers and CAD users (and it tests the market for that field). However, for the general public and most companies, it is pointless and has no real value.
My $0.02
Was it the police that seized his camera and PC, or was it MI6 that "swooped on his home?" If the police were informed that MI6 data was on the camera, I am reasonably sure MI6 would be informed of the situation. So are the police to blame, or is this simply MI6 attempting damage control? I am sorry if I am asking something that was explained in the article, but their site is down.
Also, Slashdot mentions that MI6 is recruiting off facebook. That does not surprise me. During World War II, the OSS (precursor to the CIA) had agents that were celebrities. Why can't MI6 scout out people on facebook? As long as they aren't basing their decision solely on facebook's information, I don't see a problem if they use it to find potential employees.
While Diebold initially blamed anti-virus software for the glitch, they have now discovered that the bug was their own fault for not recording votes to memory when the cards are uploaded in 'certain circumstances'
Unless one is addicted piracy, I think most people use pirated software because it allows them to access what they want relatively for free and relatively quickly if they have broadband. The fact that software is free is the main reason use pirated software. I am not saying that people use pirated software because, "it costs too much." I am saying one of the main reasons they use it is that its FREE. Unless software manufacturers drop the price down to something trivial ($.99 per game!), some people will always pirate software. However, cost, to some extent does play some role. When I was in college, I was near broke and I didn't want to spend my money on things that I was not certain were what I wanted (game quality can be hit or miss). After I graduated and got a real job, I started buying most games because I could afford to do so and if I didn't like a game, I wouldn't have to look at it as a waste of a sizable percentage of my funds that were available at that point in time. Occasionally I still use pirated versions if I am not sure if they are what I want or the software is very expensive (ie: photoshop or other professional software), but most times I buy because I can afford to do so.
I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.
That could remain true.... you just have to change the assumption that the only person learning and gaining information is the student while using the spycams.
In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
Of course NASA isn't involved in that. INS division 6 handles extra-terrestrial contact.
Anyways, am I the only one that found it odd that in each sentence he specifically state that NASA wasn't involved? He didn't say that the US government doesn't track or cover up such things. This leaves it open to any other group or department. The spokesperson did not flat out say NASA has not encountered any evidence of extra-terrestrial life forms visiting Earth. The closest thing he said is "we do not share his opinions on the issue." If I was wearing my tin-foil hat, I would say it is odd that in every other sentence he was very precise in stating that 'NASA' does not handle a particular activity or procedure, but in the last statement he is not as precise and says, "...we do not share his opinions on this issue." The word "we" could refer to different groups or sub-departments. What opinions are they referring to? If they are referring to the belief that they have visited several times, I would have to say that several is not a quantitative term and what I see as several, others would view as "many" or "a few." That is a difference in opinion.
Oh well... maybe I should just take off my tinfoil hat now.
The LA Times says dozens of similar matches have been found. I have learned not to trust the media when they use questionable terms like "similar." By similar did they mean that in all of those other cases, 9 (or more) of the 13 genetic markers used were matched like they were in this one case? Or is the paper trying to make it seem more severe by saying dozens of similar instances exist, but these cases only match a couple of the marker--not nine markers. While this one example throws some questions into things, I want some more numbers before I start wasting a lot of money redoing every DNA test. Things such as scandal and fear sell papers. Using words such as similar allow writers to make things sound much worse than they might be. This sells papers.
If Microsoft wants to make the next version of Windows a success, I have one idea that will help minimize (but not prevent) disappointment during the initial release. Do not spend years building it up and claiming it will have several great and innovative features and then fail to deliver them and fail to meet the original planned release date. Before Windows was released, many features such as a great, new file system were promised but were not delivered. Other features that were promised were stripped down to meet deadlines or were built up by advertisements to a point that the possibility of meeting everyone's expectations were near impossible. So, Microsoft, here is the tip: Do not promise what you cannot deliver.
I tried searching the web for more information on blackswift or the HTV-3X project. Most news articles I found were from February or March and all of them said it used scramjets, not DPE's. Even on darpa says the plane uses scramjets to sustain hypersonic flight. Unless Darpa decided to suddenly change the propulsion system on it in the last 3 months, I do not believe this article is not accurate.
I don't think the NASA analyst was as dumb as you imply. I think he was just trying to put it in terms the morons at Fox could handle. Think about it, the news anchor was in awe after looking at a computer animation of the plane. When the analyst explained that it would go at least mach 5 and possibly up to mach 10, the Fox News anchor still couldn't under stand him. When he realized he couldn't describe the aircraft in any intelligent way, he did what one would do if explaining it to a 5 year old--say its "very complicated" and it goes "real fast."
The Roaster will have a range of 220 miles per charge... Assuming it even has that efficiency, how long does it take to charge? I would not want to drive 300 miles across the state and have to pull over and wait 8 hours at a gas station while the batteries recharge. Yes, I understand this car is not made for road trips, but a vehicle that has any real purpose will not be caught in such a situation.
I don't think the internet is still in its infancy. Judging by spelling and grammar found in message board posts, blogs, and myspace accounts (ie: "Teh w3b Rulz!!!11"), I would have guessed it is around age of a first grader.
In the past, if I wanted to get information from another Windows machine, all I had to do was stick it in my Windows machine, log in as Administrator on my machine and change the permissions on the old hard drive. Then I could access all of the information, and bypass the Windows security from the other machine. The only thing I couldn't do is access some of the information that is actually stored in data files (such as IE's cache), even though it looks like a regular directory when ran within it's own windows installation. This is not new stuff.
I was once told that, in the development of new software or devices, aspects of product development can be broken down into 3 categories: Cost, quality, speed of completion/delivery of the new product. Customers can usually only choose two items to be in their favor. It sounds as if one (or maybe two?) of two things happened. 1) The politicians and the voting committees chose low cost and quick speed of delivery, but (wrongly) still expect the highest quality. 2) Or the government chose a bad company for the project.
According to the article, the government did spend a lot of money on the overall project (4 billion on the voting act of 2002), but I can guarantee that the entire 4 billion did not go towards purchasing the voting machines. Considering how many voting machines are needed and how important they are, the government needs to rethink how much money is being spent on these machines and their choices in this project.
This sounds familiar.... NASA receiving large amounts of money to achieve an important goal in which time was incredibly important. I think we called it the Space Race. You claim that such a thing could set the space program back, but I think it has the potential to move the program forward. In the circumstances listed above, NASA made a number of advancements while trying to get a man on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. economy has been in a recession since December 2007
In other news, the ocean has been declared wet and Antarctica is said to be cold.
...and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents.
I want to know what was the context in which this was asked. Everyone that has handled a firearm has heard that he/she should treat every gun as if it is loaded, even if it isn't. It is an idea to add safety. It doesn't mean a gun without ammunition will fire. However, if a gun is believed to be clear of all ammunition and it is not, one does not have to worry about causing damage or injury. Similarly soldiers are in an area in which the enemy dresses the same as civilians that are not taking part in the battle. This means, to avoid surprise attack, one must consider that the innocent looking civilian across the street is not so innocent and is preparing to ambush our soldiers. Am I saying all civilians should be fought and shot, as if they were insurgents in a battle? No. I am saying that soldiers treating civilians with the same concept of suspicion and reserve while they are on patrol is not unreasonable to protect their lives. Depending on the context of the question and the situations to which the question is referring, answers can be different when being asked how civilians should be handled.
I suspect this is yet another project in which a company asked, "can we do it?" without asking, "should we do it?" I doubt much of a market exists for users that want to run more than one OS on a cell phone. Also, abstraction layer the company and article speak of sounds similar to the Java virtual machine, but on a slightly lower level. I am not very familiar with complex mobile devices, but can see very little benefit in creating another layer of abstraction at a lower level to simply allow quicker development of programs, when developers can already do that with Java if they want programs portable amongst devices.
Lets see here.... they get complaints that they favor one candidate, but they don't check, and if necessary correct their mistake, until after the election is over. This gave more attention to one candidate throughout the campaign. After the election is over they check what several people have obviously been claiming for a while (if a significant number hadn't claimed it, the paper wouldn't have spent time to check) and discover they did favor a candidate that, coincidentally, will take office next year. Oh, oops. I am not saying something as stupid as they are responsible for Obama's victory, but extra publicity from a major news paper won't hurt if a candidate is trying to get in the public's eye. The fact that they didn't check their bias until after the election reflects poorly on the paper, IMHO.
Car manufacturers occasionally make concept cars that look neat but have no real purpose other than drawing public attention and possibly testing ideas. They are not practical and do not serve any real purpose for the general public. This card is simply the concept car of video cards. It draws public attention to the company (being on slashdot definitely draw attention) and it tests the idea of putting a large potential for processing capabilities used by movie makers and CAD users (and it tests the market for that field). However, for the general public and most companies, it is pointless and has no real value. My $0.02
...on Monday it may be possible to use the technique to resurrect mammoths and other extinct species.
Why Monday? Does he have something against doing it on Tuesday or Wednesday?
Was it the police that seized his camera and PC, or was it MI6 that "swooped on his home?" If the police were informed that MI6 data was on the camera, I am reasonably sure MI6 would be informed of the situation. So are the police to blame, or is this simply MI6 attempting damage control? I am sorry if I am asking something that was explained in the article, but their site is down. Also, Slashdot mentions that MI6 is recruiting off facebook. That does not surprise me. During World War II, the OSS (precursor to the CIA) had agents that were celebrities. Why can't MI6 scout out people on facebook? As long as they aren't basing their decision solely on facebook's information, I don't see a problem if they use it to find potential employees.
While Diebold initially blamed anti-virus software for the glitch, they have now discovered that the bug was their own fault for not recording votes to memory when the cards are uploaded in 'certain circumstances'
"Certain circumstances" -- a.k.a "voting"
Unless one is addicted piracy, I think most people use pirated software because it allows them to access what they want relatively for free and relatively quickly if they have broadband. The fact that software is free is the main reason use pirated software. I am not saying that people use pirated software because, "it costs too much." I am saying one of the main reasons they use it is that its FREE. Unless software manufacturers drop the price down to something trivial ($.99 per game!), some people will always pirate software. However, cost, to some extent does play some role. When I was in college, I was near broke and I didn't want to spend my money on things that I was not certain were what I wanted (game quality can be hit or miss). After I graduated and got a real job, I started buying most games because I could afford to do so and if I didn't like a game, I wouldn't have to look at it as a waste of a sizable percentage of my funds that were available at that point in time. Occasionally I still use pirated versions if I am not sure if they are what I want or the software is very expensive (ie: photoshop or other professional software), but most times I buy because I can afford to do so.
I bet they will find that Kilroy was already there.
Are the 3 people moving him around the field in the video included in the $100K price tag, or are they sold separately?
I thought school was for learning things rather than getting a fancy piece of paper.
That could remain true.... you just have to change the assumption that the only person learning and gaining information is the student while using the spycams.
In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
Of course NASA isn't involved in that. INS division 6 handles extra-terrestrial contact.
Anyways, am I the only one that found it odd that in each sentence he specifically state that NASA wasn't involved? He didn't say that the US government doesn't track or cover up such things. This leaves it open to any other group or department. The spokesperson did not flat out say NASA has not encountered any evidence of extra-terrestrial life forms visiting Earth. The closest thing he said is "we do not share his opinions on the issue." If I was wearing my tin-foil hat, I would say it is odd that in every other sentence he was very precise in stating that 'NASA' does not handle a particular activity or procedure, but in the last statement he is not as precise and says, "...we do not share his opinions on this issue." The word "we" could refer to different groups or sub-departments. What opinions are they referring to? If they are referring to the belief that they have visited several times, I would have to say that several is not a quantitative term and what I see as several, others would view as "many" or "a few." That is a difference in opinion. Oh well... maybe I should just take off my tinfoil hat now.
The LA Times says dozens of similar matches have been found. I have learned not to trust the media when they use questionable terms like "similar." By similar did they mean that in all of those other cases, 9 (or more) of the 13 genetic markers used were matched like they were in this one case? Or is the paper trying to make it seem more severe by saying dozens of similar instances exist, but these cases only match a couple of the marker--not nine markers. While this one example throws some questions into things, I want some more numbers before I start wasting a lot of money redoing every DNA test. Things such as scandal and fear sell papers. Using words such as similar allow writers to make things sound much worse than they might be. This sells papers.
...A cd burner and access to ThePirateBay.
If Microsoft wants to make the next version of Windows a success, I have one idea that will help minimize (but not prevent) disappointment during the initial release. Do not spend years building it up and claiming it will have several great and innovative features and then fail to deliver them and fail to meet the original planned release date. Before Windows was released, many features such as a great, new file system were promised but were not delivered. Other features that were promised were stripped down to meet deadlines or were built up by advertisements to a point that the possibility of meeting everyone's expectations were near impossible. So, Microsoft, here is the tip: Do not promise what you cannot deliver.
I tried searching the web for more information on blackswift or the HTV-3X project. Most news articles I found were from February or March and all of them said it used scramjets, not DPE's. Even on darpa says the plane uses scramjets to sustain hypersonic flight. Unless Darpa decided to suddenly change the propulsion system on it in the last 3 months, I do not believe this article is not accurate.
I don't think the NASA analyst was as dumb as you imply. I think he was just trying to put it in terms the morons at Fox could handle. Think about it, the news anchor was in awe after looking at a computer animation of the plane. When the analyst explained that it would go at least mach 5 and possibly up to mach 10, the Fox News anchor still couldn't under stand him. When he realized he couldn't describe the aircraft in any intelligent way, he did what one would do if explaining it to a 5 year old--say its "very complicated" and it goes "real fast."
NT
I thought they looked more like skinny Ewoks.
I don't think the internet is still in its infancy. Judging by spelling and grammar found in message board posts, blogs, and myspace accounts (ie: "Teh w3b Rulz!!!11"), I would have guessed it is around age of a first grader.
In the past, if I wanted to get information from another Windows machine, all I had to do was stick it in my Windows machine, log in as Administrator on my machine and change the permissions on the old hard drive. Then I could access all of the information, and bypass the Windows security from the other machine. The only thing I couldn't do is access some of the information that is actually stored in data files (such as IE's cache), even though it looks like a regular directory when ran within it's own windows installation. This is not new stuff.
According to the article, the government did spend a lot of money on the overall project (4 billion on the voting act of 2002), but I can guarantee that the entire 4 billion did not go towards purchasing the voting machines. Considering how many voting machines are needed and how important they are, the government needs to rethink how much money is being spent on these machines and their choices in this project.
This sounds familiar.... NASA receiving large amounts of money to achieve an important goal in which time was incredibly important. I think we called it the Space Race. You claim that such a thing could set the space program back, but I think it has the potential to move the program forward. In the circumstances listed above, NASA made a number of advancements while trying to get a man on the moon.