As I explained to someone elsewhere on this page, before your reply to me, this exact scenario is still covered by the same logic.
While you did it explain it to them, you did a rather crappy job of explaining how the two scenarios are equivalent. You explained the first scenario (how they need to know the data exists), but did a crappy job of explaining how the same argument applies to second (how they need to know that he has the key).
Bank statements or other accounting records would be the canonical case.
The government can compel you to provide those records if they know you have an account which would have such records. They can't compel you to tell them what accounts you have.
They do however employ very good lawyers and lobbyists who probably ensure that any liability ends with the consumer or the store not them.
I don't think any cards with personal liability exist. Every card I have has zero liability for fraud--of course, that's kind of a scam, since they just charge me the cost of fraud in my interest rate.
I'm not dinging the book. I found it quite interesting, just not all that complicated or difficult to understand. There was nothing in it that wouldn't be covered in 200-level courses in the relevant subjects.
You apparently have a very low standard for master's degrees. Anyone who passed a sophomore level philosophy class would have no problem with that book.
But as the TFA says, this is about an imposter who has assumed a diplomats name on a fake facebook account and now post fake posts.
So? Facebook allows multiple accounts with the same name. There is no reason to close the imposter account (other than it being against Facebook's TOS, but that's not the diplomats issue). The diplomat has no basis or standing to make the request.
In what world is a facebook page going to be "diplomatically damaging"? He should go pound some sand.
Hell, the storyline in Star Trek VI was to explore the end of the Cold War - or do you not consider that "true" science fiction?
Not sure, as I've never seen it. So I won't comment on it.
The term science fiction is only useful as a genre identifier to the extent that it refers to a genre with distinctive characteristics. Romance novel does not refer to any novel that happens to have a plot centered on sexual relationships. Romance novel, as a genre identifier, refers to a certain collection of archetypes, tropes, and conflict-resolution pairs.
A few examples:
Cryptonomicon is science fiction. The central conflict of the novel is the way in which computationally secure cryptography affects both individuals and societies. This conflict plays out on several levels in the novel from the personal to the geopolitical, but (with the exception of our reader-stand-in's romantic entanglement with America) the conflicts are all about how people react to and cope with technological change.
Farenheit 451 is science fiction. The central conflict of the novel is the way in which modern media causes an intellectual cheapening of the society and the "inevitable" (from the persepective of Bradbury's soapbox anyway) consequences of that cheapening.
The Ringworld series is science fiction. The novel handwaves essentially all of the technology involved. For all intents and purposes the technology is simply magic. HOWEVER, the actual conflict of the series is driven by the role that technology plays in the lives of the characters--i.e. how people as individuals and societies react to that technology. The technology radically affects their lives. THAT is science fiction. IF we had this tech, what would change?
Much of Star Trek is science fiction. Some of it is not. Those parts of the series/movies that center on how alien contact changed human society, or how various technology types change human existence are science fiction. Other parts are not.
Star Wars is NOT science fiction. None of the technology in the film has any noticeable consequences for the lives of the characters. All of the technologies are stand-ins for existing technologies. Replacing bullets with lasers when that change has none of the consequences it logically should is not science fiction. It is only science fiction when the consequences of that change are at issue. When they are not, it's some other genre (usually fantasy, but not always) in a funny costume.
Exploring the consequences of replacing bullets with lasers would be science fiction. For example, if the space fights were radically different because of the fact that lasers travel at the speed of light. If on planet battles were complicated by atmospheric interference/obstruction. Tactics would have to change. Instead we see space battles with WWII dogfight movie tactics (which would be physically implausible at best). The technology never has any consequences. It never functions any differently from existing equivalents.
The tropes and archetypes in Star Wars are all fantasy tropes and archetypes. They're not western tropes. Even though Space Operas were inspired by Horse Operas, Star Wars is unusual among Space Operas as it does not hew to most of the tropes of the Western genre (in the way that say, Firefly does).
No. They're not. You're suffering from semantic confusion. You don't know what science fiction actually is. Lasers do not make something science fiction either.
Science fiction is fiction which deals with the implications of changing technology as a fundamental part of the plot's central conflict. It can be as easily set in 3000 BC, dealing with the invention of writing, as it can be set in AD 2500 dealing with the invention of time travel.
The difference in salt is of primary importance since the purpose of Gatorade is to provide those salts that are lost during the natural process of perspiration.
They may market it that way, but it's not really true. Your body has more than enough salt stored in it to maintain levels over any reasonable period of physical exertion (100 mile races not withstanding) so long as you don't get dehydrated (unless you're on some kind of unusual ultra-low sodium diet when the Gatorade is a major portion of your total salt intake for a long period of time).
The city wasn't locked down because of the bombing. The city was locked down because two dudes were actively killing cops and throwing bombs out of their car.
I'm normally on the side of the 'fuck the police,' but in this case the decision was not completely unreasonable. It did however turn out to be ineffective (suspect escaped the perimeter anyway).
I can type "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" without looking, with only the word jumped (turned into junkie by autocorrect) needing fixing.
It's amazing what autocorrect will tell you about a person.
Slashdot Mirror
As I explained to someone elsewhere on this page, before your reply to me, this exact scenario is still covered by the same logic.
While you did it explain it to them, you did a rather crappy job of explaining how the two scenarios are equivalent. You explained the first scenario (how they need to know the data exists), but did a crappy job of explaining how the same argument applies to second (how they need to know that he has the key).
Bank statements or other accounting records would be the canonical case.
The government can compel you to provide those records if they know you have an account which would have such records. They can't compel you to tell them what accounts you have.
You realize that prostitution IS big business, right?
They do however employ very good lawyers and lobbyists who probably ensure that any liability ends with the consumer or the store not them.
I don't think any cards with personal liability exist. Every card I have has zero liability for fraud--of course, that's kind of a scam, since they just charge me the cost of fraud in my interest rate.
I'm not dinging the book. I found it quite interesting, just not all that complicated or difficult to understand. There was nothing in it that wouldn't be covered in 200-level courses in the relevant subjects.
You apparently have a very low standard for master's degrees. Anyone who passed a sophomore level philosophy class would have no problem with that book.
But as the TFA says, this is about an imposter who has assumed a diplomats name on a fake facebook account and now post fake posts.
So? Facebook allows multiple accounts with the same name. There is no reason to close the imposter account (other than it being against Facebook's TOS, but that's not the diplomats issue). The diplomat has no basis or standing to make the request.
In what world is a facebook page going to be "diplomatically damaging"? He should go pound some sand.
Hell, the storyline in Star Trek VI was to explore the end of the Cold War - or do you not consider that "true" science fiction?
Not sure, as I've never seen it. So I won't comment on it.
The term science fiction is only useful as a genre identifier to the extent that it refers to a genre with distinctive characteristics. Romance novel does not refer to any novel that happens to have a plot centered on sexual relationships. Romance novel, as a genre identifier, refers to a certain collection of archetypes, tropes, and conflict-resolution pairs.
A few examples:
Cryptonomicon is science fiction. The central conflict of the novel is the way in which computationally secure cryptography affects both individuals and societies. This conflict plays out on several levels in the novel from the personal to the geopolitical, but (with the exception of our reader-stand-in's romantic entanglement with America) the conflicts are all about how people react to and cope with technological change.
Farenheit 451 is science fiction. The central conflict of the novel is the way in which modern media causes an intellectual cheapening of the society and the "inevitable" (from the persepective of Bradbury's soapbox anyway) consequences of that cheapening.
The Ringworld series is science fiction. The novel handwaves essentially all of the technology involved. For all intents and purposes the technology is simply magic. HOWEVER, the actual conflict of the series is driven by the role that technology plays in the lives of the characters--i.e. how people as individuals and societies react to that technology. The technology radically affects their lives. THAT is science fiction. IF we had this tech, what would change?
Much of Star Trek is science fiction. Some of it is not. Those parts of the series/movies that center on how alien contact changed human society, or how various technology types change human existence are science fiction. Other parts are not.
Star Wars is NOT science fiction. None of the technology in the film has any noticeable consequences for the lives of the characters. All of the technologies are stand-ins for existing technologies. Replacing bullets with lasers when that change has none of the consequences it logically should is not science fiction. It is only science fiction when the consequences of that change are at issue. When they are not, it's some other genre (usually fantasy, but not always) in a funny costume.
Exploring the consequences of replacing bullets with lasers would be science fiction. For example, if the space fights were radically different because of the fact that lasers travel at the speed of light. If on planet battles were complicated by atmospheric interference/obstruction. Tactics would have to change. Instead we see space battles with WWII dogfight movie tactics (which would be physically implausible at best). The technology never has any consequences. It never functions any differently from existing equivalents.
The tropes and archetypes in Star Wars are all fantasy tropes and archetypes. They're not western tropes. Even though Space Operas were inspired by Horse Operas, Star Wars is unusual among Space Operas as it does not hew to most of the tropes of the Western genre (in the way that say, Firefly does).
No. They're not. You're suffering from semantic confusion. You don't know what science fiction actually is. Lasers do not make something science fiction either.
Science fiction is fiction which deals with the implications of changing technology as a fundamental part of the plot's central conflict. It can be as easily set in 3000 BC, dealing with the invention of writing, as it can be set in AD 2500 dealing with the invention of time travel.
The difference in salt is of primary importance since the purpose of Gatorade is to provide those salts that are lost during the natural process of perspiration.
They may market it that way, but it's not really true. Your body has more than enough salt stored in it to maintain levels over any reasonable period of physical exertion (100 mile races not withstanding) so long as you don't get dehydrated (unless you're on some kind of unusual ultra-low sodium diet when the Gatorade is a major portion of your total salt intake for a long period of time).
Star Wars is NOT science fiction.
Wizards in space is still a story about wizards and magic, not science. Adding in space doesn't change anything.
Maybe they're both just like anal?
Waaaaaa! Googling shit is hard! Waaaaa!
http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist
The city wasn't locked down because of the bombing. The city was locked down because two dudes were actively killing cops and throwing bombs out of their car.
I'm normally on the side of the 'fuck the police,' but in this case the decision was not completely unreasonable. It did however turn out to be ineffective (suspect escaped the perimeter anyway).
yes of course threatening or killing politicians is criminal, diluted poison or otherwise
Is offering a politician a cup of coffee a felony?
WTF happened in 20 years?
You grew up and stopped believing their lies. Nothing else changed though.
Every rational person had that exact sequence of thoughts.
EVERYTHING PRIVATIZED IS MOAR BETTER!
(Yes /. filter. I know that caps are like YELLING. That's the whole f'ing point)
I can type "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" without looking, with only the word jumped (turned into junkie by autocorrect) needing fixing.
It's amazing what autocorrect will tell you about a person.
Nice to know that soulskill has multiple accounts...
This would be a state-to-state thing most likely. California has something along those lines, but lots of places get around it with exactly this hack.
SEIU is government workers.
I wish such an agency existed. Then we wouldn't have that sparkling bullshit.
Ah, but 1 is for all practical purposes equivalent to 1+1E-100, and (1+1E-100)^Googleplex is quite a large number.
Stockton is NOT a big city.