Having a recent warrant out for arrest, being already charged with a crime, out on bail, or already been convicted of a crime. Seems like reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to me.
Er, what? So anyone who has ever been involved in the legal system in any way as a defendant immediately forfeits their rights in perpetuity? Good to know that my rights will last all the way until someone accuses me of something.
I'm opposed to the ACLU because they'll defend some of the nastiest, low-life scum-fucks on the face of the earth so long as the case is in line with their political agenda.
Conversely sometime the ACLU will decide to not defend ordinary people who have a legitimate complaint because the case does not fall in line with their political agenda.
You say "political agenda" as if the ACLU were not supposed to be a political oriented group, and as if it were hiding a dark secret that prevented them from performing their chartered function. Did you think they take on cases with the intent of helping as many people as possible through direct legal intervention? Did you think they were supposed to be a public defender for everyone who vaguely decided that their rights were violated, regardless of the broader implications or lack thereof on the American public?
The ACLU subscribes to the belief that it doesn't matter whether the defendant is a low-life scum-fuck or an outstanding citizen; if the system is being abused or civil rights eroded to prosecute them, then they should fight the precedent for the protection of all citizens, scum-fucks or not. Or did you want justice only for yourself and your family?
P.S. There is only one possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Period. You'd probably shit a brick if someone said there was more than one interpretation of the 1st Amendment and tried to argue that freedom of speech was only for members of the press.
Borrowing from someone's signature around these parts, "What part of 'well regulated militia' don't you understand?" I'll grant that that wording does not exclude the protection of the personal right to bear arms, but not that such an interpretation is the only one that can conceivably be drawn.
Also, if you'll read the First Amendment you'll notice that there's no limitation on any body besides Congress impeding free speech, yet somehow that notion has evolved to include state legislatures as well. I'm more likely to shit a brick as I listen to how you try to explain to me why that is not an instance of legal interpretrations changing.
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises?
Why is it necessary to compare candidates' actions when there's only one of them who even makes the right promises? It matters more what direction you're going than how fast you get there.
The problem is that the FCC and company require the signal strength for digital OTA television to be strong enough to cover everyone who could receive a good analog signal. They neglected to take into account the fact that many people who only receive a mediocre analog signal still find it usable for regular watching.
There have been studies that show that audio quality plays a critical role in people's perceptions of video quality. A lot of viewers who have excellent audio won't even notice if the picture is bad, and if they do they often won't care nearly as much as if the audio were bad instead.
You're getting side-tracked by the word infinite and missing the underlying point of stream programming and recursive definitions. Replace the word "infinite" with "unbounded" if it satisfies you.
I don't have mod points, but I award you a theoretical (+1, Awesome incarnation of tired old gag), and (+1, Said gag actually relevant to topic of discussion). Unfortunately I undid both mods by replying to your post.
I never understood what ex post facto meant. I want to say they can't do that but FISA went through, so I guess I just don't understand the law or the constitution.
Konqueror and the new comment system do not play nicely. Whenever I try to continue editing after a preview it drops all the previous text and I have to retype my entire reply. This time I thought I'd outwit it by copying the text before I clicked continue, but no, it decided to not populate the clipboard until after it deleted the text that I wanted to save. Sigh.
Hawking showed that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black body radiation, which is the average thermal radiation emitted by an idealized thermal source known as a black body. The radiation is as if it is emitted by a black body with a temperature that is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass.
There is nothing inherent in the phrase Wi-Fi that mandates that a network is Internet-connected. Indeed, nothing in the "article" suggests any access to the Internet from the station. This appears to just be an extension of their existing LAN.
I FUCKING HATE the bugs in the new comment system, or else Konqueror's buggy execution of it. I just typed a detailed followup describing how I was not trying to be funny in the above comment, but actually saw such a term in their ToS once. Having clicked "Continue Editting" only to be presented with a blank text box and no stateful browser history to fall back on, I'll only provide a quick summary of my findings.
In the Verizon ToS/AUP I just found online, the defamation policy has been removed. There's a post on their site announcing that this was a recent (last Fall) decision in an effort to allay fears of an overreaching power, and that the original intent of the provision was to explicitly disallow the illegal impersonation of a Verizon employee.
The AUP still contains such wonderful gems as allowing Verizon to disconnect you for off-topic posting to message boards, and groups regular porn and hate speech in the same category as child pornography. So (-1, Offtopic)ers beware, and don't you dare think about viewing (regular) porn or dissing Scientology.
As long as we're ragging on the column, I read this in the Galaxy article:
Intensity of Gravity = 1 / Distance2
This means that as an object moves closer to a planet, the gravity between them increases dramatically due to the exponential effect applied by distance.
I *hate* it when people abuse the word exponential.
While I agree that the size of the decorations was a backstep from the simplicity of the older 9x look, I'm operating at a resolution (1400x1050) high enough that I don't beleive it matters - compared to the days when I was running XP on 1024x768.
Please. I'm disappointed as much as any other reasonable geek in Obama's vote, but you and I both know he didn't support indemnity, ever. He simply failed to take strong action against it and vote down a complex bill with many non-related provisions. Please stop helping politicians exaggerate every vote into an unconditional affirmation of support for every aspect of a bill.
Not to be insulting - because I can't remember enough of Farenheit 451 to intelligently defend its worth - I just like your single-quoted summaries of those two books. Someday in the future, if F451's distopia prevails (or more likely, Idiocracy's), 'teh future!' and 'Mars, bitches!' might be labels on the bindings of Bradbury's work in an incredibly dusty library.
I remember reading an account by Bradbury regarding Farenheit 451, in which he described walking down the street, passing a woman who was listening to a Walkman while walking several dogs, completely oblivious to her surroundings. He then states, "This is not a work of fiction."
It's been a while since I read the book, so while I remember that I enjoyed it, some of the details and even a portion of the main theme escape me. Along the lines of what you mentioned, my favorite passages from the book include the minimum speed limit of 60 mph in Montag's nightmare, and the part where he asks his wife what the play is about and she responds by naming the characters, as the play had absolutely no redeeming content.
So yes, it's a great tale of how we become lost in the more superficial aspects of our lives, but it's not a point that I necessarily agree with. For instance, I don't think that walking your dogs while listening to an audio player, digital or analog, constitutes losing touch with society.
Now that I reread your description of the Pedestrian, I'm fairly certain I have read it (probably in the back of a publication of Jonas and the Giver, back in middle school). Yes, it fits perfectly. What stands out the most is how their techno-skewed culture not only rejects nonconformity - it doesn't even comprehend it.
Of course, Farenheit 451 is also a great story about oppression by government. Not quite as biting and frightening as 1984, but it's up there. You can't control books the way you can televisions. You can't retroactively erase their content to suit your current propaganda or to eliminate inspiring ideas. Of course, more useful then the books themselves was the knowledge of who was harboring books, so you would know who rejected society's mandates and thus who must be destroyed.
Then again, Bradbury wrote a non-canonical passage in which Guy Montag was shocked by his firechief's personal library. The chief responded that it was only reading that was a crime, not possession.
Sigh. It's been a while. I wish I had the time and patience for reading, but since I'm no longer in high school and thus required to read, I just can't find the time, what with.. all these... modern distractions..
I support it to the extent that I will gladly choose it over Microsoft any day, and because I believe it fosters diversity and competition in general for better browsers. But its positive effects on the market don't give it a blank check to act in opposition to my ideals. Now, this kind of thing along isn't going to force me away from it, but there is a growing feeling in me that firefox just isn't the same kind of project at its heart as debian or kde. The communal feeling is a little colder and their design decisions make me feel like the devs are more distant from where I stand.
I never understood why it was ok to abuse technically inclined users for the sake of helping everyone else. Would it really take so much more effort to have the option of gearing the user experience towards multiple levels of experience?
How do you justify classifying the automatic action of visiting a website to be an *additional* risk, when you just downloaded and installed a plugin from the same people who run that website? You just ran an executable piece of code but don't want to allow the chance for the same people to insert a data-based attack against Firefox proper, as if such an attack would give them access they didn't have before? If you don't trust NoScript's webpage, I'd advise against using their plugin as well. If you trust the developers but not their ability to keep their webpage secure, then I don't know why you trust their ability to keep their code secure, both against attacks and against the servers that host the plugin download.
Firefox may be the shining gem of the open source community (according to xkcd), but it sure as hell doesn't act like an open source project. Everything from its origins to the way its funded to the way it promotes itself, and yes, its actual behavior with regards to SSL certs and upgrades, point to it being... something else.
It's still better than the main alternative, but I'm wondering if I should start investigating Opera.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, what? So anyone who has ever been involved in the legal system in any way as a defendant immediately forfeits their rights in perpetuity? Good to know that my rights will last all the way until someone accuses me of something.
You say "political agenda" as if the ACLU were not supposed to be a political oriented group, and as if it were hiding a dark secret that prevented them from performing their chartered function. Did you think they take on cases with the intent of helping as many people as possible through direct legal intervention? Did you think they were supposed to be a public defender for everyone who vaguely decided that their rights were violated, regardless of the broader implications or lack thereof on the American public?
The ACLU subscribes to the belief that it doesn't matter whether the defendant is a low-life scum-fuck or an outstanding citizen; if the system is being abused or civil rights eroded to prosecute them, then they should fight the precedent for the protection of all citizens, scum-fucks or not. Or did you want justice only for yourself and your family?
Borrowing from someone's signature around these parts, "What part of 'well regulated militia' don't you understand?" I'll grant that that wording does not exclude the protection of the personal right to bear arms, but not that such an interpretation is the only one that can conceivably be drawn.
Also, if you'll read the First Amendment you'll notice that there's no limitation on any body besides Congress impeding free speech, yet somehow that notion has evolved to include state legislatures as well. I'm more likely to shit a brick as I listen to how you try to explain to me why that is not an instance of legal interpretrations changing.
Why is it necessary to compare candidates' actions when there's only one of them who even makes the right promises? It matters more what direction you're going than how fast you get there.
The problem is that the FCC and company require the signal strength for digital OTA television to be strong enough to cover everyone who could receive a good analog signal. They neglected to take into account the fact that many people who only receive a mediocre analog signal still find it usable for regular watching.
There have been studies that show that audio quality plays a critical role in people's perceptions of video quality. A lot of viewers who have excellent audio won't even notice if the picture is bad, and if they do they often won't care nearly as much as if the audio were bad instead.
You're getting side-tracked by the word infinite and missing the underlying point of stream programming and recursive definitions. Replace the word "infinite" with "unbounded" if it satisfies you.
I don't have mod points, but I award you a theoretical (+1, Awesome incarnation of tired old gag), and (+1, Said gag actually relevant to topic of discussion). Unfortunately I undid both mods by replying to your post.
I'd settle for a voting system that isn't as mathematically flawed as multiple-candidate-single-vote/majority-required.
I never understood what ex post facto meant. I want to say they can't do that but FISA went through, so I guess I just don't understand the law or the constitution.
Ironically, the Apple's Mac/PC ads are... observational, in nature.
Konqueror and the new comment system do not play nicely. Whenever I try to continue editing after a preview it drops all the previous text and I have to retype my entire reply. This time I thought I'd outwit it by copying the text before I clicked continue, but no, it decided to not populate the clipboard until after it deleted the text that I wanted to save. Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
In particular, note:
So a small enough hole would indeed be non-black.
There is nothing inherent in the phrase Wi-Fi that mandates that a network is Internet-connected. Indeed, nothing in the "article" suggests any access to the Internet from the station. This appears to just be an extension of their existing LAN.
Don't worry. The nation that gave us Battle Royale will never protect their kids.
Black holes emit radiation. They are not black.
I'm annoyed that every technological area of research involving analyzing human beings has to be justified to the public as fighting terrorism.
I FUCKING HATE the bugs in the new comment system, or else Konqueror's buggy execution of it. I just typed a detailed followup describing how I was not trying to be funny in the above comment, but actually saw such a term in their ToS once. Having clicked "Continue Editting" only to be presented with a blank text box and no stateful browser history to fall back on, I'll only provide a quick summary of my findings.
In the Verizon ToS/AUP I just found online, the defamation policy has been removed. There's a post on their site announcing that this was a recent (last Fall) decision in an effort to allay fears of an overreaching power, and that the original intent of the provision was to explicitly disallow the illegal impersonation of a Verizon employee.
The AUP still contains such wonderful gems as allowing Verizon to disconnect you for off-topic posting to message boards, and groups regular porn and hate speech in the same category as child pornography. So (-1, Offtopic)ers beware, and don't you dare think about viewing (regular) porn or dissing Scientology.
You realize you're not allowed to use Verizon's services to defame them in any way, right? Careful what you say.
As long as we're ragging on the column, I read this in the Galaxy article:
I *hate* it when people abuse the word exponential.
While I agree that the size of the decorations was a backstep from the simplicity of the older 9x look, I'm operating at a resolution (1400x1050) high enough that I don't beleive it matters - compared to the days when I was running XP on 1024x768.
Please. I'm disappointed as much as any other reasonable geek in Obama's vote, but you and I both know he didn't support indemnity, ever. He simply failed to take strong action against it and vote down a complex bill with many non-related provisions. Please stop helping politicians exaggerate every vote into an unconditional affirmation of support for every aspect of a bill.
*Chuckles*
Not to be insulting - because I can't remember enough of Farenheit 451 to intelligently defend its worth - I just like your single-quoted summaries of those two books. Someday in the future, if F451's distopia prevails (or more likely, Idiocracy's), 'teh future!' and 'Mars, bitches!' might be labels on the bindings of Bradbury's work in an incredibly dusty library.
I remember reading an account by Bradbury regarding Farenheit 451, in which he described walking down the street, passing a woman who was listening to a Walkman while walking several dogs, completely oblivious to her surroundings. He then states, "This is not a work of fiction."
It's been a while since I read the book, so while I remember that I enjoyed it, some of the details and even a portion of the main theme escape me. Along the lines of what you mentioned, my favorite passages from the book include the minimum speed limit of 60 mph in Montag's nightmare, and the part where he asks his wife what the play is about and she responds by naming the characters, as the play had absolutely no redeeming content.
So yes, it's a great tale of how we become lost in the more superficial aspects of our lives, but it's not a point that I necessarily agree with. For instance, I don't think that walking your dogs while listening to an audio player, digital or analog, constitutes losing touch with society.
Now that I reread your description of the Pedestrian, I'm fairly certain I have read it (probably in the back of a publication of Jonas and the Giver, back in middle school). Yes, it fits perfectly. What stands out the most is how their techno-skewed culture not only rejects nonconformity - it doesn't even comprehend it.
Of course, Farenheit 451 is also a great story about oppression by government. Not quite as biting and frightening as 1984, but it's up there. You can't control books the way you can televisions. You can't retroactively erase their content to suit your current propaganda or to eliminate inspiring ideas. Of course, more useful then the books themselves was the knowledge of who was harboring books, so you would know who rejected society's mandates and thus who must be destroyed.
Then again, Bradbury wrote a non-canonical passage in which Guy Montag was shocked by his firechief's personal library. The chief responded that it was only reading that was a crime, not possession.
Sigh. It's been a while. I wish I had the time and patience for reading, but since I'm no longer in high school and thus required to read, I just can't find the time, what with.. all these... modern distractions..
Dear God, this is indeed not a work of fiction.
I support it to the extent that I will gladly choose it over Microsoft any day, and because I believe it fosters diversity and competition in general for better browsers. But its positive effects on the market don't give it a blank check to act in opposition to my ideals. Now, this kind of thing along isn't going to force me away from it, but there is a growing feeling in me that firefox just isn't the same kind of project at its heart as debian or kde. The communal feeling is a little colder and their design decisions make me feel like the devs are more distant from where I stand.
I never understood why it was ok to abuse technically inclined users for the sake of helping everyone else. Would it really take so much more effort to have the option of gearing the user experience towards multiple levels of experience?
How do you justify classifying the automatic action of visiting a website to be an *additional* risk, when you just downloaded and installed a plugin from the same people who run that website? You just ran an executable piece of code but don't want to allow the chance for the same people to insert a data-based attack against Firefox proper, as if such an attack would give them access they didn't have before? If you don't trust NoScript's webpage, I'd advise against using their plugin as well. If you trust the developers but not their ability to keep their webpage secure, then I don't know why you trust their ability to keep their code secure, both against attacks and against the servers that host the plugin download.
Firefox may be the shining gem of the open source community (according to xkcd), but it sure as hell doesn't act like an open source project. Everything from its origins to the way its funded to the way it promotes itself, and yes, its actual behavior with regards to SSL certs and upgrades, point to it being... something else.
It's still better than the main alternative, but I'm wondering if I should start investigating Opera.