To a certain extent I would say that you are right in that it really doesn't matter whose being invasive. However, there is another aspect that is missed in this. That being that we should be able to trust our government to represent "our" interests as we should be able to place a measure of trust in them not afforded to business.
Given her apparent level of physical health from her picture in the article you would be safe to assume that (though the article does actually confirm it's type I). However, in general you really aren't on such solid ground to expect incidents of diabetes in children to most certainly be type I any longer for reasons generally assumed to be related to said corn syrup.
She was a teenager used to following orders by people in authority rather than questioning them and advocating for her own self-interests. In other words a model citizen.
Have these folks never heard of the concept of a honey pot to trap the would-be intruder? This is just plain stupid to let these folks snoop around and install whatever malware they want in such important infrastructure. It's like smoking near the pumps at a fueling station and they station attendant is told to leave them be so longer as they don't get "too" close to the explosive vapors.
Not exactly true but also not exactly false. They're packing just over 400M additional transistors on it. Most of which are being dedicated to graphics processing. Some minor tweaks to the cores give a very modest improvement over a Sandy Bridge with the same clock. When Intel packed the cores into a much smaller space simply to make room for the larger on-board graphics unit they actually shot themselves in the foot a bit. Very similar thermal loads are having to be displaced through a much smaller area. This is causing these processors to run significantly hotter and one of the main reasons why the overclocking ability of this chip is pretty poor. While this won't mean much to Joe Bloggs today, it does spell out trouble for the traditional speed improvements you'd normally see down the road.
I'm sure some bean counter somewhere thought beefing up the on-board graphics would boost revenue somehow but as a performance enthusiast all I see is a huge waste of transistors at the expense of future performance increases. The $40 entry-level discrete graphics card still easily outclasses what's on-board. This chip was built with intentions of cheap all-in-one PCs and small form factor devices not the performance desktop.
I think we'll also see it start to become somewhat irrelevant. We're running to the edge of what is possible with traditional silicon both in terms of physics and manufacturing methods. Unless Intel has a proverbial rabbit to pull out of the hat the head start they have will soon be removed by TSMC et al.. when the financials incentivise the creation of a new fab. The roadmap they forecast for the next decade is indeed dependent upon those rabbits and their not being cost prohibitive at that.
Taking off underwear was a bit "too" much for them to get away with. However, "enhanced" pat-downs of "suspicious" persons sounds perfectly reasonable to most people. Bring this special treatment to the most suspicious segment of the population--those requiring medical support systems--whom are more likely to cruise than fly though and things will suddenly get a bit more interesting.
I don't think they would be able scale production for common use anyway. IIRC indium is in short supply with the overwhelming majority of it coming from China.
The assumption was a supply accessible to us humans with present or near term technology. On earth helium is actually in very short supply. Uranium on the other hand is relatively abundant. It might be one of the most common elements in the universe but that helium is staring at us from the other side of the fence.
Civilian arms are nothing but a mosquito on the flesh of a western military. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. You might be able to shoot the fellow standing outside the tank. You might even be fortunate enough to pierce his body armor, wound or kill him. That is, assuming he's even a human and not metal. But, you my friend are dead the moment you pull the trigger.
There are a few reasons off the top of my head that stick out to me. Lighter than air implies a big bag with helium or hydrogen in it which come with a few problems:
Big bags of helium or hydrogen leak. We have yet to develop a material that does not slowly leak out of the pores in the bag. So their ability to stay in the air is substantially (read orders of magnitude) shorter. For instance our nuclear powered naval vessels refuel on 20 year intervals. The shore leave/resupply is for the meat inside the cans.
Helium is in particularly finite supply. Uranium isn't.
Bags of gas are terribly hard to control in a strong wind.
Bags of gas are huge targets with limited maneuverability. With out the bags they can utilize stealth technology and have incredible maneuverability/agility. Not only does this mean that they can avoid being shot down but also and far more importantly no one will ever know they're there and being spied upon.
Intelligence tends not to be what farmers lack, knowledge is. It is a rare farmer that is "well read." But, when it comes to their problem domain you'll generally find they're quite adept whether it comes to basic mechanics, animal husbandry, crop management, etc.. They tend to be hands-on skill oriented, learning what they know from their parents. Book knowledge and intellectual pursuits are typically sidelined if not completely ignored. Not because they're dumb, but because it isn't relevant to the farm and therefore not valued. They "know what they know" but that doesn't stop them from having an abundance of opinions when it comes to what they don't. It's this latter part that gives them their "ignorant/stupid hick" appearance to everyone.
I will agree that "status symbols" short-circuit rational thinking in many individuals. However, I am not aware of any cultural trends wherein video games, nor things like toothpaste, groceries, books, prescription medicine, etc. are being treated as "status symbols". They just aren't things that you go around publicly displaying to demonstrate superiority and achievement. Accordingly people don't go around indiscriminately blowing large amounts of cash on these things just to show off. They try to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
If they want control, then they need to price used games out of the market. The only reason the secondary market exists is due to the fact that they've priced new games out of reach of their target market--kids, especially teens. If they'd make their games affordable by the kids that play them they'd more than make up the difference in volume. $60+ for the typical 20 hours worth of content is not a good value even to adults with a reasonable income. People will bleed only as much money as they have and it's human nature to get good value for that money. If that means buying used, lending, or some other less legal means people will always find a way to avoid being gouged by what they consider unreasonable prices.
If you want to ban something ban product advertisements for garbage foods and their counterpart, weight loss pills, magic candy bars, shakes, TV dinners, etc.. Product marketing departments and the lack of knowledge about proper diet and exercise are only rivaled in their contribution to obesity and eating disorders by the unhealthy lifestyles that are a product thereof.
People have adversarial relationships with food because people only understand that food makes you fat. They lack an understanding what foods contribute to health and what foods destroys health. Making matters worse are sedentary lifestyles that destroy metabolisms, and overall health in general.
The problem isn't "skinny" models. The only thing a skinny model does it remind us that we're fat and generally unhealthy and is no different than walking by your local gym and comparing yourself to the people inside. The real problem is an uneducated population that has no idea what the definition of proper diet and exercise truly means. Further compounding the problem are product marketing departments educating you on how fat and unhealthy you are as a means of motivating you to buy their snake oil. Thus millions of morons think that if they pop their magic pill or eat their magic candy bar, TV dinner, etc. they'll go from 250lb walruses to 105lb supermodels. Some might even wander down to a gym and make an attempt to exercise, but either lifestyle habits, or discouragement when their weight doesn't budge or even increases--because they exchanged fat for muscle--or both find them soon giving up.
If you want people to be healthy you need to equip them with proper knowledge of what that actually means, give them an understanding of how to attain it, and motivate healthy changes to their lifestyle habits. People with eating disorders are some of the most motivated people on the planet to do something about weight, but all they understand is that food makes them fat and so that's what they target. If they understood that eating healthy combined with proper exercise--and what that really meant--was more effective I don't think most would end up going down that adversarial and deadly relationship with food.
The whole thing is completely pointless with variations between professions easily attributed to statistical background noise. On any given day the same survey would yield a completely different distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
And what was this...?
To a certain extent I would say that you are right in that it really doesn't matter whose being invasive. However, there is another aspect that is missed in this. That being that we should be able to trust our government to represent "our" interests as we should be able to place a measure of trust in them not afforded to business.
Um, I thought "they" were the ones that "we" outsourced to? Did you get confused along the way...?
Given her apparent level of physical health from her picture in the article you would be safe to assume that (though the article does actually confirm it's type I). However, in general you really aren't on such solid ground to expect incidents of diabetes in children to most certainly be type I any longer for reasons generally assumed to be related to said corn syrup.
God damned pedantic twits bent on elevating themselves by criticizing the syntax of speech rather than evaluating its content.
She was a teenager used to following orders by people in authority rather than questioning them and advocating for her own self-interests. In other words a model citizen.
Have these folks never heard of the concept of a honey pot to trap the would-be intruder? This is just plain stupid to let these folks snoop around and install whatever malware they want in such important infrastructure. It's like smoking near the pumps at a fueling station and they station attendant is told to leave them be so longer as they don't get "too" close to the explosive vapors.
Not exactly true but also not exactly false. They're packing just over 400M additional transistors on it. Most of which are being dedicated to graphics processing. Some minor tweaks to the cores give a very modest improvement over a Sandy Bridge with the same clock. When Intel packed the cores into a much smaller space simply to make room for the larger on-board graphics unit they actually shot themselves in the foot a bit. Very similar thermal loads are having to be displaced through a much smaller area. This is causing these processors to run significantly hotter and one of the main reasons why the overclocking ability of this chip is pretty poor. While this won't mean much to Joe Bloggs today, it does spell out trouble for the traditional speed improvements you'd normally see down the road.
I'm sure some bean counter somewhere thought beefing up the on-board graphics would boost revenue somehow but as a performance enthusiast all I see is a huge waste of transistors at the expense of future performance increases. The $40 entry-level discrete graphics card still easily outclasses what's on-board. This chip was built with intentions of cheap all-in-one PCs and small form factor devices not the performance desktop.
I think we'll also see it start to become somewhat irrelevant. We're running to the edge of what is possible with traditional silicon both in terms of physics and manufacturing methods. Unless Intel has a proverbial rabbit to pull out of the hat the head start they have will soon be removed by TSMC et al.. when the financials incentivise the creation of a new fab. The roadmap they forecast for the next decade is indeed dependent upon those rabbits and their not being cost prohibitive at that.
Taking off underwear was a bit "too" much for them to get away with. However, "enhanced" pat-downs of "suspicious" persons sounds perfectly reasonable to most people. Bring this special treatment to the most suspicious segment of the population--those requiring medical support systems--whom are more likely to cruise than fly though and things will suddenly get a bit more interesting.
Excellent. This means that soon the AARP will join the fight against the TSA's sexual molestation practices!
You know what would be funny...?
I don't think they would be able scale production for common use anyway. IIRC indium is in short supply with the overwhelming majority of it coming from China.
The assumption was a supply accessible to us humans with present or near term technology. On earth helium is actually in very short supply. Uranium on the other hand is relatively abundant. It might be one of the most common elements in the universe but that helium is staring at us from the other side of the fence.
Civilian arms are nothing but a mosquito on the flesh of a western military. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. You might be able to shoot the fellow standing outside the tank. You might even be fortunate enough to pierce his body armor, wound or kill him. That is, assuming he's even a human and not metal. But, you my friend are dead the moment you pull the trigger.
There are a few reasons off the top of my head that stick out to me. Lighter than air implies a big bag with helium or hydrogen in it which come with a few problems:
Intelligence tends not to be what farmers lack, knowledge is. It is a rare farmer that is "well read." But, when it comes to their problem domain you'll generally find they're quite adept whether it comes to basic mechanics, animal husbandry, crop management, etc.. They tend to be hands-on skill oriented, learning what they know from their parents. Book knowledge and intellectual pursuits are typically sidelined if not completely ignored. Not because they're dumb, but because it isn't relevant to the farm and therefore not valued. They "know what they know" but that doesn't stop them from having an abundance of opinions when it comes to what they don't. It's this latter part that gives them their "ignorant/stupid hick" appearance to everyone.
I will agree that "status symbols" short-circuit rational thinking in many individuals. However, I am not aware of any cultural trends wherein video games, nor things like toothpaste, groceries, books, prescription medicine, etc. are being treated as "status symbols". They just aren't things that you go around publicly displaying to demonstrate superiority and achievement. Accordingly people don't go around indiscriminately blowing large amounts of cash on these things just to show off. They try to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
If they want control, then they need to price used games out of the market. The only reason the secondary market exists is due to the fact that they've priced new games out of reach of their target market--kids, especially teens. If they'd make their games affordable by the kids that play them they'd more than make up the difference in volume. $60+ for the typical 20 hours worth of content is not a good value even to adults with a reasonable income. People will bleed only as much money as they have and it's human nature to get good value for that money. If that means buying used, lending, or some other less legal means people will always find a way to avoid being gouged by what they consider unreasonable prices.
If you want to ban something ban product advertisements for garbage foods and their counterpart, weight loss pills, magic candy bars, shakes, TV dinners, etc.. Product marketing departments and the lack of knowledge about proper diet and exercise are only rivaled in their contribution to obesity and eating disorders by the unhealthy lifestyles that are a product thereof.
People have adversarial relationships with food because people only understand that food makes you fat. They lack an understanding what foods contribute to health and what foods destroys health. Making matters worse are sedentary lifestyles that destroy metabolisms, and overall health in general.
It's really quite simple. Anorexia isn't a condition that leads itself to selling products. Obesity on the other hand...
The problem isn't "skinny" models. The only thing a skinny model does it remind us that we're fat and generally unhealthy and is no different than walking by your local gym and comparing yourself to the people inside. The real problem is an uneducated population that has no idea what the definition of proper diet and exercise truly means. Further compounding the problem are product marketing departments educating you on how fat and unhealthy you are as a means of motivating you to buy their snake oil. Thus millions of morons think that if they pop their magic pill or eat their magic candy bar, TV dinner, etc. they'll go from 250lb walruses to 105lb supermodels. Some might even wander down to a gym and make an attempt to exercise, but either lifestyle habits, or discouragement when their weight doesn't budge or even increases--because they exchanged fat for muscle--or both find them soon giving up.
If you want people to be healthy you need to equip them with proper knowledge of what that actually means, give them an understanding of how to attain it, and motivate healthy changes to their lifestyle habits. People with eating disorders are some of the most motivated people on the planet to do something about weight, but all they understand is that food makes them fat and so that's what they target. If they understood that eating healthy combined with proper exercise--and what that really meant--was more effective I don't think most would end up going down that adversarial and deadly relationship with food.
The whole thing is completely pointless with variations between professions easily attributed to statistical background noise. On any given day the same survey would yield a completely different distribution.
everyone.