What's interesting is, it is soundly supported by sales statistics for several Baen authors, as well as other authors like Cory Doctorow. It sounds unlikely that anyone would do it (why buy when I can get it for free?), but it's hard to argue with sales graphs.
I imagine that the tent is to provide shade and perhaps air conditioning (?) to sit in while one sits on a chair and takes the time to strip the insulation from the wire.
If they have an issue with copper theft, I see nothing wrong with a plainclothes security guard nearby. It's less disruptive to other customers than a uniformed one, I imagine. Your messing with them is basically just real-life trolling. What's the point?
I am by no means an expert, but I remember seeing images of wound canals from AK-47 rounds and M16 rounds when I was heavily interested in Shadowrun, and thinking that they were both freaking scary.
Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Caliber ) has an interesting image (not to scale) comparing the two rounds' performance. I had never known that there were both temporary and permanent wound cavities. (ew.) What's interesting is, the 5.56mm round's permanent cavity looks much larger (even accounting for different scales), and appears to occur much sooner in the trajectory within flesh. The 7.62mm round looks like it could pass through a limb or torso with a minimal permanent cavity, whereas the 5.56mm round just shreds things 6-8 inches in. Given that my torso is less than 12 inches thick, that means it could lead to some substantial internal injuries.
Not that I'd like to be shot by either round, mind you. Both scare the bejeezus out of me.
Pretty much. I don't consider Canada to be my country's enemy, even if they're trying to scope out our secrets. I obviously don't want them to succeed at getting those secrets, but it's naiive to think that they're not going to try to. It would be like considering teenagers to be bad just because they keep secrets from their parents: Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't... what color is the sky on that planet?
While it wasn't at all clear from the words I wrote, I didn't mean to imply that one shouldn't ever say things which others might take poorly ("Bob's selfish" or "The Prime Minister of Elbonia eats babies"), but rather that one should expect that they may become public. Others have pointed out that the entire context of these messages was SUPPOSED to stay secret... however, this proves that that's not guaranteed. Self-censorship by diplomats is probably not a good idea, in that context.
I would be extremely surprised if Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and just about any other ally of the United States were not also spying on the US (and on each other). I imagine that any successful government needs to have both a diplomatic arm, where it tries to be friends with its neighbors, and an intelligence arm which tries to figure out what the hell the others are doing (or trying to do).
I would imagine remaining on good terms with allies would be served well by speaking civilly and nicely about them in all communications. If you call the Prime Minister of Elbonia a power-mad idiot behind his back, you clearly don't respect him... and diplomacy without respect sounds challenging. Similarly, if Country X's feelings are hurt because it became public that they asked us to do Mean Things to Country Y (or Z), perhaps they should have thought more heavily on that before making the request/suggestion.
I guess the overall lesson is that we (and governments) should endeavour treat others (in our actions writings, speakings, and perhaps even thoughts) in a manner which would not embarass us if done publically. If you don't want to read it on the front page of the New York Times, you are better off not saying it. Expecting mean things said secretly to stay secret is always unwise, but the lesson is even more poignant now when it's easier to publish than ever before.
All the more reason to practice good network security, with lots of logs of traffic, so you can prove that you didn't download it, or that the intrusion came from elsewhere. OF course, good luck being able to find an expert witness who can back that up. Scary.
His point was, they can know that you're doing heavy traffic, but if your traffic is encrypted, they have to figure out whether you're sharing Batman or acting as a Linux mirror, or perhaps just VPNing into work and uploading lots of research data, or even mirroring the latest WoW patches. Even traffic analysis, which can reveal that you're sharing data with a thousand other hosts rather than primarily one or two (as one might in the case of a VPN), has a hard time distinguishing between infringing uses and non-infringing.
How is a gun not designed to be used on people? Every gun is designed to use kinetic energy to inflict physical trauma on a target, usually a fleshy target. That encompasses people, rabbits, moose, and birds. It may not be intended for use on people, but its design certainly doesn't preclude it.
There's a certain amount of peer pressure and general jerk-ness present in school which might not be as prevalent in a more supervised environment like Scouting or organized sports. Kids have to learn to recognize (and deal with) bullies, resolve conflict diplomatically, and generally get along with people whose goals are not quite the same as theirs. I imagine it's harder to expose your kids to jerks when homeschooling.
I imagine that breaking chair legs can be done easily, if one uses enough leverage. Not sure where they'd get that or be able to do it quickly at school, mind you, but it certainly seems possible for an eleven year old.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
And further on:
Lawful Evil: "Dominator" or "Diabolic": Tyrants, amoral mercenaries with a strong personal code. E.g. Magneto or Boba Fett.
Neutral Evil: Selfish, act for their own benefit, but doesn't pursue destruction for its own sake. E.g. Mystique.
Chaotic Evil: No respect for the Rules, other people's desires, etc. Also selfish. E.g. Riddick.
The "Robin Hood" archetype is basically Chaotic Good (as is Mal Reynolds): they do things which are generally considered good, even if at odds with the Law. I think Wikipedia fits here, or wants to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Who did Assange get killed?
What's illegal about what they've done?
And, the perpetrators only risk a littering fine.
Many people had the same opinion of George Bush, and yet he was not only elected but re-elected.
There's always a place for civil disobedience. However, those being disobedient have to accept the consequences of their actions.
What's interesting is, it is soundly supported by sales statistics for several Baen authors, as well as other authors like Cory Doctorow. It sounds unlikely that anyone would do it (why buy when I can get it for free?), but it's hard to argue with sales graphs.
But, at home, I can use it with my local wireless network, right?
I imagine that the tent is to provide shade and perhaps air conditioning (?) to sit in while one sits on a chair and takes the time to strip the insulation from the wire.
If they have an issue with copper theft, I see nothing wrong with a plainclothes security guard nearby. It's less disruptive to other customers than a uniformed one, I imagine. Your messing with them is basically just real-life trolling. What's the point?
I am by no means an expert, but I remember seeing images of wound canals from AK-47 rounds and M16 rounds when I was heavily interested in Shadowrun, and thinking that they were both freaking scary.
Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Caliber ) has an interesting image (not to scale) comparing the two rounds' performance. I had never known that there were both temporary and permanent wound cavities. (ew.) What's interesting is, the 5.56mm round's permanent cavity looks much larger (even accounting for different scales), and appears to occur much sooner in the trajectory within flesh. The 7.62mm round looks like it could pass through a limb or torso with a minimal permanent cavity, whereas the 5.56mm round just shreds things 6-8 inches in. Given that my torso is less than 12 inches thick, that means it could lead to some substantial internal injuries.
Not that I'd like to be shot by either round, mind you. Both scare the bejeezus out of me.
Pretty much. I don't consider Canada to be my country's enemy, even if they're trying to scope out our secrets. I obviously don't want them to succeed at getting those secrets, but it's naiive to think that they're not going to try to. It would be like considering teenagers to be bad just because they keep secrets from their parents: Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't ... what color is the sky on that planet?
While it wasn't at all clear from the words I wrote, I didn't mean to imply that one shouldn't ever say things which others might take poorly ("Bob's selfish" or "The Prime Minister of Elbonia eats babies"), but rather that one should expect that they may become public. Others have pointed out that the entire context of these messages was SUPPOSED to stay secret ... however, this proves that that's not guaranteed. Self-censorship by diplomats is probably not a good idea, in that context.
That's a good point. There's always the balance between effectiveness and political prudence (rather than correctness).
I would be extremely surprised if Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and just about any other ally of the United States were not also spying on the US (and on each other). I imagine that any successful government needs to have both a diplomatic arm, where it tries to be friends with its neighbors, and an intelligence arm which tries to figure out what the hell the others are doing (or trying to do).
I would imagine remaining on good terms with allies would be served well by speaking civilly and nicely about them in all communications. If you call the Prime Minister of Elbonia a power-mad idiot behind his back, you clearly don't respect him ... and diplomacy without respect sounds challenging. Similarly, if Country X's feelings are hurt because it became public that they asked us to do Mean Things to Country Y (or Z), perhaps they should have thought more heavily on that before making the request/suggestion.
I guess the overall lesson is that we (and governments) should endeavour treat others (in our actions writings, speakings, and perhaps even thoughts) in a manner which would not embarass us if done publically. If you don't want to read it on the front page of the New York Times, you are better off not saying it. Expecting mean things said secretly to stay secret is always unwise, but the lesson is even more poignant now when it's easier to publish than ever before.
When they find the badger song, you're DONE. You can seek a good asylum at that point, and plan to come back when they're 35.
Or, you can sing it with them. And then pipe "Particle Man" into their rooms while they sleep.
We still play cowboys and indians, we just do it dressed as the good guys or the Opfor in games like CoD.
... that you know of. ;)
All the more reason to practice good network security, with lots of logs of traffic, so you can prove that you didn't download it, or that the intrusion came from elsewhere. OF course, good luck being able to find an expert witness who can back that up. Scary.
His point was, they can know that you're doing heavy traffic, but if your traffic is encrypted, they have to figure out whether you're sharing Batman or acting as a Linux mirror, or perhaps just VPNing into work and uploading lots of research data, or even mirroring the latest WoW patches. Even traffic analysis, which can reveal that you're sharing data with a thousand other hosts rather than primarily one or two (as one might in the case of a VPN), has a hard time distinguishing between infringing uses and non-infringing.
How is a gun not designed to be used on people? Every gun is designed to use kinetic energy to inflict physical trauma on a target, usually a fleshy target. That encompasses people, rabbits, moose, and birds. It may not be intended for use on people, but its design certainly doesn't preclude it.
There's a certain amount of peer pressure and general jerk-ness present in school which might not be as prevalent in a more supervised environment like Scouting or organized sports. Kids have to learn to recognize (and deal with) bullies, resolve conflict diplomatically, and generally get along with people whose goals are not quite the same as theirs. I imagine it's harder to expose your kids to jerks when homeschooling.
I imagine that breaking chair legs can be done easily, if one uses enough leverage. Not sure where they'd get that or be able to do it quickly at school, mind you, but it certainly seems possible for an eleven year old.
Well, true.
True, but what generally matters is intent. (Or, so I understood it. I could be wrong.)
Per Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) ):
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
And further on:
Lawful Evil: "Dominator" or "Diabolic": Tyrants, amoral mercenaries with a strong personal code. E.g. Magneto or Boba Fett.
Neutral Evil: Selfish, act for their own benefit, but doesn't pursue destruction for its own sake. E.g. Mystique.
Chaotic Evil: No respect for the Rules, other people's desires, etc. Also selfish. E.g. Riddick.
The "Robin Hood" archetype is basically Chaotic Good (as is Mal Reynolds): they do things which are generally considered good, even if at odds with the Law. I think Wikipedia fits here, or wants to be.