Only an uninformed daydreamer would propose voting for a third-party as a solution. It is a widespread consensus in political science that the United States' particular voting setup leads inevitably to a two-party system. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, and this is simply not going to happen.
Would it? While we couldn't readily eliminate the electoral college without a constitutional amendment, I don't recall anywhere in the constitution where the specific method of voting is prescribed. Isn't that delegated to the states? They should be free to switch to another system, like a preferential voting system.
I agree. The quote: 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?' sounds like Manning took the prosecution's argument and rephrased it in the first person. It sounds improbable with respect to sincerity.
How much more natural does it seem to imagine the prosecution (or the authorities in question) saying: 'How on earth could you, a junior analyst, possibly believe that you could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
It almost seems tongue in cheek to me.
I get the feeling that it was the kind of line that should have been expounded on, but for fear that it would become that much more transparent. A more full line might have read...
"How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority? I divulged sensitive information to a third party with insufficient regard for the impact of that information. That information could have led to the deaths of Americans, leaving only negative impact. To make a positive change in the world it would have had to be seen by Americans. Those Americans would have had to petition our government to stop the atrocities revealed in the documents. Maybe even to have inspired another individual to turn "treasonous" and blow the whistle on even deeper secrets, surveillance penetrating the core of the American way. Going all the way to the top, until the President himself has to go on television and make a speech about reviewing our programs. How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better..."
Big Government is afraid of the damage Big Data could do because it knows the impact of storing and processing massive quantities of data. It has a lot of experience doing this, itself, and is afraid of anyone else doing the same thing.
I have digressed quite a bit from the primary topic, but I hope this research will shine some light into the stupidity and inhumaneness in capital punishment. In fact, while you cannot kill people to test that this is true in humans, you can use those that are being executed as such. All it takes is a portable EEG unit at the execution. I bet many would volunteer, but the states would block it in some fashion.
While I don't approve of capital punishment, due to the errors that have been made in identifying the guilty party, the excessive cost when compared to life incarceration, and the fact that it just doesn't deter crime, this has to be the least of my concerns. If we're only considering lethal injection, then of the several drugs that are administered, the first is to put the sentenced to sleep. Once effectively drugged into sleep, the rest of the drugs merely terminate all the functions of the body that keep it alive. There probably isn't much left to experience that last surge of brain activity.
As it happens, though, if someone is sentenced to death I don't think 30 seconds of pure terror is really relevant. Ultimately, we're killing them, and they've been dealing with their impending death for years.
More interestingly, they were looking at ways to block or delay that signal. So then even if part of a multi-cellular organism died, the rest of it wouldn't know about it and keep going in a zombielike state.
"I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference - and I think the American people's preference - would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws; a thoughtful, fact-based debate." - Obama
Mr. President, how are we supposed to have a thoughtful, fact based debate about programs which are so secret nobody knew about them until a whistle blower revealed them directly to the public. About a court who's orders are so secret that entire companies shut down when the thread of an order looms, and they can't even say what the threat was.
Without transparency, there can be no debate. Without Snowden, there would be no transparency on this issue.
Currently wireless devices negotiating connections to nearby WiFi points need to exchange MAC addresses in the initial exchange of data, on an essentially open channel, because all data exchanges recognize each other with the MAC address, to determine routing.
Perhaps the spec could be augmented by allowing a randomized MAC address that is not tied to the device. Define the first octet so manufacturers don't assign anything to it, and leave the remaining bits as completely random. Make the next part of the packet the public half of a key pair that the device expects responses to come back to. Allow the same random MAC address scheme to be used by either side of the connection. Only accept packets that can be properly decoded with the private key of the key pair, which eliminates the problem of random MAC address collisions. As a part of negotiating the secured connection, when exchanging the private key also exchange the real MAC address only after the secured connection is complete. Or, never use the real MAC address and retain the random MAC address for the duration of the connection.
The problem will arise when the computers recreate the Funniest Joke in the World, sealed under a monument in 1950 labeled "To The Unknown Joke" After all, the computer will not know it has created the Killer Joke, leaving us with the danger of mass hysterics breaking out.
None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.
Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"?...
Also bear in mind that substantial investments in major corporations can give the investor some sway in the corporation's decisions. If a major stakeholder threatens to pull out, it can injure the corporation, so when a major stakeholder tries to effect change, the corporation is more likely to listen.
Oh please. Blink is as well written as anything written for a weekly TV show. Which is amazing since the lead is a female and Moffat can't write females (which happens to be the best reason for not having a female doctor). Yes there are also terrible episodes.
Actually this is one of the better reasons for casting a female Doctor for one regeneration. Moffat would end up (possibly inadvertently) writing the Doctor as a male personality even though the Doctor would have regenerated as a woman. There are many character traits that the Doctor carries through regenerations, and it might make sense that a female Doctor, an individual who's been a male for thousands of years, wouldn't act the way we expect a human female to act.
Yes, the probability of coming up male 11 times out of 11 times for an evenly weighted coin flip is 5 thousanths of a percent. That strongly implies that either the coin flip isn't evenly weighted or it isn't a coin flip at all.
Therefore, it would be likely that regenerating with a different gender is the result of an external event.
This is a VTOL carrier, through and through. I don't see any significant weaponry on board beyond the aircraft carrying capabilities, and no sources that I can find indicate the armanent of DDH-183 Izumo. Helicopters and VTOL manned and drone aircraft would be ideal uses for that flight deck.
OK, what kind of musk do you attract drones with? When are they in season? Anybody know a good make of drone call? Are the readybuilt stands any good?
My cousin bagged a 9 point drone once. Got it hanging up in the rec room.
Any illegal drug will suffice to draw it out, though growing a food plot visible from the air of an appropriately illegal drug may be a better idea. Baiting is poor sportsmanship.
They're always in season!
For a good drone call, pick up any handy cellphone on any major provider, call a friend, and discuss your food plot, above. PRISM will take care of the rest.
A good blind should provide cover and be part of what the drone expects to see, disguise it as equipment for your food plot, such as a water tank.
WARNING: drone calls and attractants are also highly effective attractants for federal agents, who may be accompanying the drone from the ground. They may dispute the drone season defined by local law and may not understand that your food plot is solely for the drone's benefit.
Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.
If this continues, every item sold within the US is going to have a 89-page disclaimer. It is bad enough that insulated cups have warnings about the contents being hot, now electronic devices need to have a disclaimer about the internet having pornography? This guy is literally, blaming the messenger (company that makes the device), for this his own actions and lack of self-control. Plenty of people can use the internet and even peruse sexual content without having their lives destroyed.
Maybe he should have tried getting a life and setting his priorities, instead of watching the Farrah Abraham video.
Hey, it's not his fault his wife found his link to Lesbian Spank Inferno!
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today.
But, if it all melted, that portion of the ice which is below sea level would not contribute to an increase in sea level, because the land it was on would then be inundated with water.
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
So wait, you're telling me that all these game-changing social media startups telling me I don't need physical presence anymore want... physical presence? Is this supposed to be ironic?
I guess that means all those social media startups are the hipsters of the IT world.
Then how do you get any feedback mechanisms? If I want to use a remote controlled walking drone and plug into it, having a balance circuit feed back to me would be very helpful in not falling over, for example.
Without volts, amp-hours is completely meaningless. If I have a process that can create a battery that stores 1.2Ah/g at 0.3V and I'm trying to beat a process that stores 0.3Ah/g at 1.2V then I've done nothing useful. Both store 360mWh/g (1296mWh/joules).
In fact, if you look at phys.org you'll find that the fourfold increase is not in Ah/g, but in J/g. It actually has an eightfold increase in Ah/g but the voltage drops by half.
So the article is right, but does a really bad job of explaining why.
Slashdot Mirror
Only an uninformed daydreamer would propose voting for a third-party as a solution. It is a widespread consensus in political science that the United States' particular voting setup leads inevitably to a two-party system. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, and this is simply not going to happen.
Would it? While we couldn't readily eliminate the electoral college without a constitutional amendment, I don't recall anywhere in the constitution where the specific method of voting is prescribed. Isn't that delegated to the states? They should be free to switch to another system, like a preferential voting system.
I agree. The quote: 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?' sounds like Manning took the prosecution's argument and rephrased it in the first person. It sounds improbable with respect to sincerity.
How much more natural does it seem to imagine the prosecution (or the authorities in question) saying: 'How on earth could you, a junior analyst, possibly believe that you could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
It almost seems tongue in cheek to me.
I get the feeling that it was the kind of line that should have been expounded on, but for fear that it would become that much more transparent. A more full line might have read...
"How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority? I divulged sensitive information to a third party with insufficient regard for the impact of that information. That information could have led to the deaths of Americans, leaving only negative impact. To make a positive change in the world it would have had to be seen by Americans. Those Americans would have had to petition our government to stop the atrocities revealed in the documents. Maybe even to have inspired another individual to turn "treasonous" and blow the whistle on even deeper secrets, surveillance penetrating the core of the American way. Going all the way to the top, until the President himself has to go on television and make a speech about reviewing our programs. How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better..."
Big Government is afraid of the damage Big Data could do because it knows the impact of storing and processing massive quantities of data. It has a lot of experience doing this, itself, and is afraid of anyone else doing the same thing.
The politicians just love the planet so much they tried to put a ring on it.
I have digressed quite a bit from the primary topic, but I hope this research will shine some light into the stupidity and inhumaneness in capital punishment. In fact, while you cannot kill people to test that this is true in humans, you can use those that are being executed as such. All it takes is a portable EEG unit at the execution. I bet many would volunteer, but the states would block it in some fashion.
While I don't approve of capital punishment, due to the errors that have been made in identifying the guilty party, the excessive cost when compared to life incarceration, and the fact that it just doesn't deter crime, this has to be the least of my concerns. If we're only considering lethal injection, then of the several drugs that are administered, the first is to put the sentenced to sleep. Once effectively drugged into sleep, the rest of the drugs merely terminate all the functions of the body that keep it alive. There probably isn't much left to experience that last surge of brain activity.
As it happens, though, if someone is sentenced to death I don't think 30 seconds of pure terror is really relevant. Ultimately, we're killing them, and they've been dealing with their impending death for years.
More interestingly, they were looking at ways to block or delay that signal. So then even if part of a multi-cellular organism died, the rest of it wouldn't know about it and keep going in a zombielike state.
What could possibly go wrong?
"I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference - and I think the American people's preference - would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws; a thoughtful, fact-based debate." - Obama
Mr. President, how are we supposed to have a thoughtful, fact based debate about programs which are so secret nobody knew about them until a whistle blower revealed them directly to the public. About a court who's orders are so secret that entire companies shut down when the thread of an order looms, and they can't even say what the threat was.
Without transparency, there can be no debate. Without Snowden, there would be no transparency on this issue.
I'd forgotten to turn off third party cookies in my current browser. Thanks for reminding me that the option exists.
Perhaps the spec could be augmented by allowing a randomized MAC address that is not tied to the device. Define the first octet so manufacturers don't assign anything to it, and leave the remaining bits as completely random. Make the next part of the packet the public half of a key pair that the device expects responses to come back to. Allow the same random MAC address scheme to be used by either side of the connection. Only accept packets that can be properly decoded with the private key of the key pair, which eliminates the problem of random MAC address collisions. As a part of negotiating the secured connection, when exchanging the private key also exchange the real MAC address only after the secured connection is complete. Or, never use the real MAC address and retain the random MAC address for the duration of the connection.
In fact, it is 1/(2^11) = 1/2048 ~= 0.5%. A thousand times more than "5 thousandths of a percent".
Actually .5% is a hundred times more than 5 thousandths of a percent.
Which means we're both wrong, because it is .05%.
1/2048 ~= .0005 = .05%
I should have said 5 hundredths of a percent, I misspoke in the original. (My math was correct, but I saw .05 as thousanths not hundredths.)
The problem will arise when the computers recreate the Funniest Joke in the World, sealed under a monument in 1950 labeled "To The Unknown Joke" After all, the computer will not know it has created the Killer Joke, leaving us with the danger of mass hysterics breaking out.
None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.
Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"? ...
Also bear in mind that substantial investments in major corporations can give the investor some sway in the corporation's decisions. If a major stakeholder threatens to pull out, it can injure the corporation, so when a major stakeholder tries to effect change, the corporation is more likely to listen.
Oh please. Blink is as well written as anything written for a weekly TV show. Which is amazing since the lead is a female and Moffat can't write females (which happens to be the best reason for not having a female doctor). Yes there are also terrible episodes.
Actually this is one of the better reasons for casting a female Doctor for one regeneration. Moffat would end up (possibly inadvertently) writing the Doctor as a male personality even though the Doctor would have regenerated as a woman. There are many character traits that the Doctor carries through regenerations, and it might make sense that a female Doctor, an individual who's been a male for thousands of years, wouldn't act the way we expect a human female to act.
Yes, the probability of coming up male 11 times out of 11 times for an evenly weighted coin flip is 5 thousanths of a percent. That strongly implies that either the coin flip isn't evenly weighted or it isn't a coin flip at all. Therefore, it would be likely that regenerating with a different gender is the result of an external event.
You're not really blocking Facebook in the user browsers, are you? Wouldn't it make more sense to block at the network level?
This is a VTOL carrier, through and through. I don't see any significant weaponry on board beyond the aircraft carrying capabilities, and no sources that I can find indicate the armanent of DDH-183 Izumo. Helicopters and VTOL manned and drone aircraft would be ideal uses for that flight deck.
OK, what kind of musk do you attract drones with? When are they in season? Anybody know a good make of drone call? Are the readybuilt stands any good?
My cousin bagged a 9 point drone once. Got it hanging up in the rec room.
Any illegal drug will suffice to draw it out, though growing a food plot visible from the air of an appropriately illegal drug may be a better idea. Baiting is poor sportsmanship.
They're always in season!
For a good drone call, pick up any handy cellphone on any major provider, call a friend, and discuss your food plot, above. PRISM will take care of the rest.
A good blind should provide cover and be part of what the drone expects to see, disguise it as equipment for your food plot, such as a water tank.
WARNING: drone calls and attractants are also highly effective attractants for federal agents, who may be accompanying the drone from the ground. They may dispute the drone season defined by local law and may not understand that your food plot is solely for the drone's benefit.
This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!
Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.
You just need the right bullet for the job.
If this continues, every item sold within the US is going to have a 89-page disclaimer. It is bad enough that insulated cups have warnings about the contents being hot, now electronic devices need to have a disclaimer about the internet having pornography? This guy is literally, blaming the messenger (company that makes the device), for this his own actions and lack of self-control. Plenty of people can use the internet and even peruse sexual content without having their lives destroyed.
Maybe he should have tried getting a life and setting his priorities, instead of watching the Farrah Abraham video.
Hey, it's not his fault his wife found his link to Lesbian Spank Inferno!
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today.
But, if it all melted, that portion of the ice which is below sea level would not contribute to an increase in sea level, because the land it was on would then be inundated with water.
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
0754, why?
So wait, you're telling me that all these game-changing social media startups telling me I don't need physical presence anymore want... physical presence? Is this supposed to be ironic?
I guess that means all those social media startups are the hipsters of the IT world.
Speeds that are the product of an irrational number and the speed of light cannot be expressed as a fraction. Consider yourself out-pedanted.
Why, you can't go C/Pi?
Then how do you get any feedback mechanisms? If I want to use a remote controlled walking drone and plug into it, having a balance circuit feed back to me would be very helpful in not falling over, for example.
Without volts, amp-hours is completely meaningless. If I have a process that can create a battery that stores 1.2Ah/g at 0.3V and I'm trying to beat a process that stores 0.3Ah/g at 1.2V then I've done nothing useful. Both store 360mWh/g (1296mWh/joules). In fact, if you look at phys.org you'll find that the fourfold increase is not in Ah/g, but in J/g. It actually has an eightfold increase in Ah/g but the voltage drops by half. So the article is right, but does a really bad job of explaining why.