No, I'm sure if an Android story manages to make it to/., then OP will be happily trolling away. The phrase "..the Android forums too,..." implies that this is an Apple forum.
Now Linux users can experience all the heartache and frustration that goes with Steam! Mysteriously vanishing content, random lock-outs, and a customer service strategy apparently developed by EA. I can't wait! [/snark]
On some levels, Steam is a wonderful idea, quick access to varied content, a centrally located distribution/launch point, and exposure to odder and more esoteric media are all benefits of Steam. Except when something goes wrong, which based on my experience is a fairly regular occurrence. That game you've owned for years that suddenly won't launch because Steam gets stuck in verification mode? Send them an email, and you'll probably hear back in about a month or so, and then with a request for more information.
Last time I looked, this was Slashdot, not Apple.com. (Yep, just checked, this is definitely/.) Apple enjoys some popularity here only by dint of the fact that Steve Jobs was a slightly less evil bastard than Bill Gates is, but it's only a matter of degree.
After reading your whiny post, I find it entirely believable that you were bullied in school until you decided to stand up for yourself.
"My name is Sue. How do you do? Now you gonna die...."
Wrong question. It should be, How can I make this plane unflyable without having to compromise the armored cockpit door? Seems to me that tearing a large hole in the fuselage should do the trick nicely, bonus points if you do it over the wing, (you know, where airliners carry their fuel?)
Long gone are the days when we worried about "This plane is going to Cuba." or "Release our brothers you are holding or we will start killing passengers." Given that most of the plots that we've been made privy to involve some variant of sneaking an explosive on to the plane, (The Shoe Bomber, The Fruit-of-Kaboom Guy, the Great Toner Cartridge Debacle,) worrying about someone trying to smuggle a grenade onto a plane seems like a prudent thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I've watched too many of the TSA's little stunts to be entirely comfortable with any plan they come up with, but when they say something that actually makes sense, maybe it's worth taking notice of.
After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Actually chemical weapons are much more damaging to civilians than they are to the military. A chemical weapons attack will degrade a military unit's effectiveness (although it tends to degrade both sides equally,) but beyond the odd slow or unlucky soldier, it is unlikely to cause more than a handful of casualties.
Civilian populations, OTOH, tend to lack the protective gear and training in using it necessary to exist in a chemical environment. Not having a gas mask during a chemical attack is a bad way to be.
The problem is that the fifth amendment does apply to all participants in a trial. The problem with the parent post, as with the main article, is that it equates "the right to remain silent" with "the right against self-incrimination." The latter is from the text of the amendment, while the former is from Miranda v. Arizona, (which, to be fair, was based on the Fifth Amendment.)
Put simply, even a witness in a criminal trial has the right to refuse to testify on the grounds that he may be incriminated by his own testimony. Of course, this is a sure way to get the Prosecutor to start digging into your involvement with the crime in question, but such is the two-edged nature of most rights.
Not a lawyer, so I'm not sure of the legal precedent in regards to civil trial, but I would posit that since the Bill of Rights applies to Government actions, and in a civil case, the Government is simply acting as a referee in a dispute between two private parties, none of the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights would apply.
Let's not forget the earnest young airhead on CNN who asked Bill Nye if the near-earth encounter earlier this year was due to global warming: Bill Nye Vs. the Airhead.
Yes, I know it's a right wing news site, and the simple act of viewing it is likely to rot your mind, curve your spine, and bring us (God help us,) peace without honor, but for some strange reason, the links to the event on CNN are no longer working.
Don't know if anyone else noticed this, but here in the Eastern United States, every time Al gives a major speech on global warming, sorry, climate change, sorry, climate chaos, we're in for extremely cold weather.
...If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.
Being that it's a class action lawsuit, he'll be lucky to walk away with that much. Meanwhile, his lawyer is looking forward to a seven or eight figure payday.
One more who remembers the Ice Age Scares. Of course, who are we going to believe? Those nice salesmen telling us we need expensive insurance against future disaster or our own lying memories?
When I was in the Marines (back in the Dark Ages), it was the stated policy of the U.S. Government that we made no distinction between types of WMDs (we called them NBC weapons back then,) and an attack of that nature would be responded to in kind.
To the best of my knowledge that policy has never been rescinded.
This was mostly to counter the Soviet doctrine of beginning any land assault with a massive chemical attack without violating the Other US policy of no first use of Nuclear weapons.
All that being said, the original poster seems to be conveniently ignoring the huge policy implications implicit in the use of these types of weapons in any situation that is of a lesser degree of seriousness than a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. After all, we didn’t use nukes in Korea, even after the Chinese intervened on the side of the Nokes, even though China didn’t have the bomb at that point.
Soo... Instead of addressing my concerns, you have decided to launch into an Ad hominem attack accusing me of scientific ignorance? That is usually the sign of a poorly reasoned argument. (For the record, my degree is in Chemistry rather than Climatology, so while I have not studied the systems described, I do believe I have some knowledge of the scientific method.)
The only points in your manifesto I will stipulate to are 2 and 3, with a minor agreement on 1 with the addendum that we do not know exactly how much CO2 can create a change in climate.
It is exactly because of your points 2 and 3 that my suspicion is raised. In recorded history, it has been both much warmer and much cooler. Leif Ericson found grapes growing in the area we now know as Nova Scotia ~1000 AD (Hence the name “Vinland”) and those same Norse raised dairy cattle in Greenland. Conversely, we know in the 18th Century, the canals of Amsterdam were frozen solid enough to support regular skating on them and in North America several large rivers were frozen solid enough to transport cannon across the ice.
That’s even without going into the “Hockey Stick” graph, and the fierce defense of it before it was proven to be false, and predictions based on a computer model that showed rising temperatures no matter what data was plugged in. Add to that the constantly changing explanations as to what this all means, re. Climate Change replacing global warming, the counter-intuitive argument that Greenhouse gas warming is responsible for observed cooling, it very much looks like a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Read the comment again, since you apparently were behind the door the day they taught reading comprehension in your school.
I was not objecting to him siting the NYT (A left-leaning source) to make his argument, I was objecting to him siting a left-leaning source in the same paragraph as slamming the WSJ (a right-leaning source) as hopelessly biased.
Just because you see issue in a specific source because it disagrees with your world view, does not mean that it is actually biased.
My smell-o-meter detected a rat very early on in the AGW debate. For me (and those of my generation,) my youth was filled with horror stories of the coming ice age and how pollution was bringing it about. The proposals to counter this effect were exactly the same as the ones now being pushed to counter global warming; i.e. don't burn fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, increase our dependence on renewables, etc.
Then, sometime in to 90's talk of global warming began, always with the effects 30-50 years out, but unstoppable unless we did something Right Now!. Well, we're 20 years into this, and the only major weather effect I have observed is last winter, which had a level of snowfall I hadn't seen since 1972 (Right when the "Coming Ice Age!" scare began.)
By this logic, your smartphone needs to be taken off the market. Far more children are injured each year by swallowing batteries than were ever hurt by swallowing magnets. Your cellphone has a battery, and therefore is too is too dangerous to be available to the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm sure if an Android story manages to make it to /., then OP will be happily trolling away. The phrase "..the Android forums too,..." implies that this is an Apple forum.
Now Linux users can experience all the heartache and frustration that goes with Steam! Mysteriously vanishing content, random lock-outs, and a customer service strategy apparently developed by EA. I can't wait! [/snark]
On some levels, Steam is a wonderful idea, quick access to varied content, a centrally located distribution/launch point, and exposure to odder and more esoteric media are all benefits of Steam. Except when something goes wrong, which based on my experience is a fairly regular occurrence. That game you've owned for years that suddenly won't launch because Steam gets stuck in verification mode? Send them an email, and you'll probably hear back in about a month or so, and then with a request for more information.
Last time I looked, this was Slashdot, not Apple.com. (Yep, just checked, this is definitely /.) Apple enjoys some popularity here only by dint of the fact that Steve Jobs was a slightly less evil bastard than Bill Gates is, but it's only a matter of degree.
Of course, it must have been nice not to have to respond to a modern level of time precision:
Prehistoric Nomad's Wife (PNW): "Where have you been?"
Prehistoric Nomad: (PN): "What are you talking about?"
PNW: "You said you'd be back by now! You're late!"
PN: "What are you talking about? I said I'd be back later. It's barely now. If anything, I'm early!"
Of course, since people haven't changed, Prehistoric Nomad ended up sleeping outside the tent anyway for the crime of winning an argument.
After reading your whiny post, I find it entirely believable that you were bullied in school until you decided to stand up for yourself. "My name is Sue. How do you do? Now you gonna die...."
And how are things in Redmond?
Tell me another one. That was the funniest thing I've heard all week.
Not to mention the satisfaction in being able to yell "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" at that 3 am noise your wife thought she heard.
Wrong question. It should be, How can I make this plane unflyable without having to compromise the armored cockpit door? Seems to me that tearing a large hole in the fuselage should do the trick nicely, bonus points if you do it over the wing, (you know, where airliners carry their fuel?)
Long gone are the days when we worried about "This plane is going to Cuba." or "Release our brothers you are holding or we will start killing passengers." Given that most of the plots that we've been made privy to involve some variant of sneaking an explosive on to the plane, (The Shoe Bomber, The Fruit-of-Kaboom Guy, the Great Toner Cartridge Debacle,) worrying about someone trying to smuggle a grenade onto a plane seems like a prudent thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I've watched too many of the TSA's little stunts to be entirely comfortable with any plan they come up with, but when they say something that actually makes sense, maybe it's worth taking notice of.
After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Oh, and Marty, be careful around that Griff character. He's got a few short circuits in his bionic implants.
That reminds me, Marty. You better not hook up to the amplifier. There's a slight possibility of overload.
Please justify your statement in regards to the contention that plants producing sterile seeds = unacceptable corporate greed.
Actually chemical weapons are much more damaging to civilians than they are to the military. A chemical weapons attack will degrade a military unit's effectiveness (although it tends to degrade both sides equally,) but beyond the odd slow or unlucky soldier, it is unlikely to cause more than a handful of casualties.
Civilian populations, OTOH, tend to lack the protective gear and training in using it necessary to exist in a chemical environment. Not having a gas mask during a chemical attack is a bad way to be.
The problem is that the fifth amendment does apply to all participants in a trial. The problem with the parent post, as with the main article, is that it equates "the right to remain silent" with "the right against self-incrimination." The latter is from the text of the amendment, while the former is from Miranda v. Arizona, (which, to be fair, was based on the Fifth Amendment.)
Put simply, even a witness in a criminal trial has the right to refuse to testify on the grounds that he may be incriminated by his own testimony. Of course, this is a sure way to get the Prosecutor to start digging into your involvement with the crime in question, but such is the two-edged nature of most rights.
Not a lawyer, so I'm not sure of the legal precedent in regards to civil trial, but I would posit that since the Bill of Rights applies to Government actions, and in a civil case, the Government is simply acting as a referee in a dispute between two private parties, none of the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights would apply.
Let's not forget the earnest young airhead on CNN who asked Bill Nye if the near-earth encounter earlier this year was due to global warming: Bill Nye Vs. the Airhead. Yes, I know it's a right wing news site, and the simple act of viewing it is likely to rot your mind, curve your spine, and bring us (God help us,) peace without honor, but for some strange reason, the links to the event on CNN are no longer working.
Don't know if anyone else noticed this, but here in the Eastern United States, every time Al gives a major speech on global warming, sorry, climate change, sorry, climate chaos, we're in for extremely cold weather.
...If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.
Being that it's a class action lawsuit, he'll be lucky to walk away with that much. Meanwhile, his lawyer is looking forward to a seven or eight figure payday.
One more who remembers the Ice Age Scares. Of course, who are we going to believe? Those nice salesmen telling us we need expensive insurance against future disaster or our own lying memories?
When I was in the Marines (back in the Dark Ages), it was the stated policy of the U.S. Government that we made no distinction between types of WMDs (we called them NBC weapons back then,) and an attack of that nature would be responded to in kind.
To the best of my knowledge that policy has never been rescinded.
This was mostly to counter the Soviet doctrine of beginning any land assault with a massive chemical attack without violating the Other US policy of no first use of Nuclear weapons.
All that being said, the original poster seems to be conveniently ignoring the huge policy implications implicit in the use of these types of weapons in any situation that is of a lesser degree of seriousness than a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. After all, we didn’t use nukes in Korea, even after the Chinese intervened on the side of the Nokes, even though China didn’t have the bomb at that point.
Then there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc
Soo... Instead of addressing my concerns, you have decided to launch into an Ad hominem attack accusing me of scientific ignorance? That is usually the sign of a poorly reasoned argument. (For the record, my degree is in Chemistry rather than Climatology, so while I have not studied the systems described, I do believe I have some knowledge of the scientific method.)
The only points in your manifesto I will stipulate to are 2 and 3, with a minor agreement on 1 with the addendum that we do not know exactly how much CO2 can create a change in climate.
It is exactly because of your points 2 and 3 that my suspicion is raised. In recorded history, it has been both much warmer and much cooler. Leif Ericson found grapes growing in the area we now know as Nova Scotia ~1000 AD (Hence the name “Vinland”) and those same Norse raised dairy cattle in Greenland. Conversely, we know in the 18th Century, the canals of Amsterdam were frozen solid enough to support regular skating on them and in North America several large rivers were frozen solid enough to transport cannon across the ice.
That’s even without going into the “Hockey Stick” graph, and the fierce defense of it before it was proven to be false, and predictions based on a computer model that showed rising temperatures no matter what data was plugged in. Add to that the constantly changing explanations as to what this all means, re. Climate Change replacing global warming, the counter-intuitive argument that Greenhouse gas warming is responsible for observed cooling, it very much looks like a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
"Hello, Pot, this is Kettle...."
Read the comment again, since you apparently were behind the door the day they taught reading comprehension in your school.
I was not objecting to him siting the NYT (A left-leaning source) to make his argument, I was objecting to him siting a left-leaning source in the same paragraph as slamming the WSJ (a right-leaning source) as hopelessly biased.
Just because you see issue in a specific source because it disagrees with your world view, does not mean that it is actually biased.
Physician, heal thyself.
My smell-o-meter detected a rat very early on in the AGW debate. For me (and those of my generation,) my youth was filled with horror stories of the coming ice age and how pollution was bringing it about. The proposals to counter this effect were exactly the same as the ones now being pushed to counter global warming; i.e. don't burn fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, increase our dependence on renewables, etc.
Then, sometime in to 90's talk of global warming began, always with the effects 30-50 years out, but unstoppable unless we did something Right Now!. Well, we're 20 years into this, and the only major weather effect I have observed is last winter, which had a level of snowfall I hadn't seen since 1972 (Right when the "Coming Ice Age!" scare began.)
I think I'll hold onto my skepticism for now.
Really? Really? You're gonna slam the WSJ as impossible partisan and site the NYT as a no-partisan source?
By this logic, your smartphone needs to be taken off the market. Far more children are injured each year by swallowing batteries than were ever hurt by swallowing magnets. Your cellphone has a battery, and therefore is too is too dangerous to be available to the general public.