The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"
I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!
Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.
Just to be pedantic, it was actually the Commander (Armstrong) who actually flew the LM to the surface, not the misnomered LMP, who mainly monitored things and called out warnings and readings. So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program. The transcript has Armstrong saying "I'm going to..." when he goes into P66.
It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoDâ"at least after a while. Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it. This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk. I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim. Just like Amber Alerts. Now, the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping. Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends. If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing. They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after. Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.
Aside from being annoyed at the "cloud" buzzword I keep seeing, how (honestly, not rhetorical) would cloud computing help here? Wouldn't the often-updated news content (especially audio and video) still have to come, at its source, from CNN or whoever, since they're the ones writing/saying/videoing the news content? I must be missing something fundamental to cloud computing, so what is it, please?
I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do. Troll on.
That said, this is ridiculous; just because a technology exists for something, you don't have to use it for everything. If you're truly interested in bringing your friends to (your) religion, Twitter's not gonna do it. You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever. Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious. This will just end up backfiring on them and making them look like fools.
I buy and use what I like and what I feel lets me work best. I don't think the Apple Tax is that high (hell, it might not even exist), but if Apple can command that price and have people pay it, what's wrong with that? It's just economics: things are worth only what people will pay for them.
Yeah, I fail to see how this is bad news for anyone. OK, if the language is code for creationism and is taught accordingly, then that's bad. But if the curriculum is taught as the language says, then it's essentially a rephrase of scientific philosophy: nothing is set in stone, and somebody should always be looking for weaknesses in theories usually taken for granted, just in case they're wrong. Who knows, maybe one of them will find that something in commonly-accepted evolution theory doesn't hold. That's not to say that creationism wins, but human knowledge does. The tendency in this evolution vs. creationism debate of BOTH sides to cling to their beliefs no matter what is troubling. Scientists need to remain always aware that they're probably wrong in the details, and to resist change or criticism makes them no better than creationists.
[To clarify, I am not a fundamentalist creationist or anything like that; I believe in evolution. But I don't treat the prevailing theories necessarily as Holy Gospel. Pun intended.]
Wait. Not excessively intrusive in light of her age and sex? What the hell does THAT mean? Since when does a person's gender or age mean that a strip search is less intrusive? You're making somebody who's dramatically underage, BUT old enough to know what's going on, strip naked. If anything, the fact that she's young and female makes it MORE intrusive (I think the average boy would shrug it off better than a girl would; I might be wrong in that assumption, though). It sounds like whoever said that thinks young girls are worth less than other people, but I hope they're not actually saying that.
Good work on declaring a National Pi Day on 3/14, for whatever significance a Congress-designated "National * Day" has, but they had to do it when it falls on a Saturday? Methinks that schools won't do much to teach about Pi and math on a Saturday, and a lot of the significance of the date would be lost if they taught about it on Friday or Monday, neither of which are 3/14.
Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speaking, but this particular situation raises the rather interesting prospect of a venue change or something similar. Unless of course Ray says otherwise.
If the court is to decide on the acceptability of something they do (i.e., streaming), can the RIAA fight for a change of venue? I mean, you wouldn't want a Ten-Commandments-in-the-courtroom case to be decided in a courtroom where the Ten Commandments are on the wall, right? Usually, if there's a conflict of interest, the judge can just recuse him/herself, but that wouldn't work here. Can RIAA put up a straight-faced argument about changing venue (say, to a court they think might be more friendly anyway)?
I read it differently. "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office..." To me, that means that, sure, he's President at noon, but he can't *execute* that office---do anything with it---until he takes the oath. (As an aside, I don't think that the 20th Amendment is the first time the starts-at-noon provision appears. I think it duplicated a provision from the Constitution proper, but changed the date.) What trips people up, I think, is that everyone seems to think that taking an oath requires a bible, the Chief Justice, and TV coverage. But all that's required is someone authorized to give oaths or affirmations as some sort of witness. A hurried new President could easily recite the oath in the presence of a notary or something while running somewhere, if necessary.
Of course, realistically, no court would ever disqualify a President's action based on that under unusual circumstances. That takes a level of balls that probably doesn't exist.
I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?
Part of me wonders if this is not-trivially for publicity, like Greenpeace goes after Apple a couple times a year. But either way, not many people will care and I certainly doubt that they'll convert anybody. iTunes does, IIRC, sell non-DRM'd music (at a premium but also at a higher bitrate), and the DRM they do have is fairly unobtrusive as DRM goes. I don't like DRM'd media any more than the next person, but I can think of much worse offenders to go after than Apple.
I'm a theist (of a rather popular sort that I won't get into because I do NOT want to argue the merits of my belief---no one will win). Arguments about God and its existence are always pointless because God as most of us theists believe in it is omnipotent. And when you have an omnipotent God, the rules of logical argument break down. So, yes, when I consider how the Universe formed, I conclude that it cannot have created itself, that something must have brought it into being. I choose to call that thing God and to ascribe to it other qualities in line with my beliefs.
Yes, now, you say, I must deal with how God was created. No, I don't, because God as I believe in it is omnipotent; an omnipotent thing can do anything it wants, including create itself. Science isn't paradox-free, either. [1]
Besides, what of scientists who are also atheists? They say the universe was formed out of a larger multiverse. How was the multiverse formed? Infinite regression (I like that term) comes into play HERE, not when an omnipotent God exists (or is assumed to exist). I strongly doubt that it is possible to prove the existence of God to anyone aside from oneself, just as I strongly doubt that it is possible to prove God's nonexistence to anyone but oneself.
[1] I'm not saying this as a knock against science. I'm a student, not in a scientific field, but I very much enjoy and respect science and most scientists. I don't feel science needs to exist without a God. I do, however, agree that one cannot resort to "God did it" within the scientific method. (I just think the scientific method cannot answer everything.)
Nope, I was referring to the court's Opinion. I've had enough experience with legal "journalism" to know that the actual written opinion of the court is much more reliable than any news story written about it. I'm just too lazy to wade through the thing right now.
They didn't deal with the claims put forth by the environmentalists? Then what the hell DID they consider besides the Navy's side? (No, I didn't RTFO.)
A bit OT, and n00b me if you want, but how do you get the minis to work together as a grid? Do you use OS X Server, or something that works with the general OS X?
Calm down. IIRC, in the NBC (in the States) broadcast of the Opening Ceremony, the commentator said that the fireworks being shown then were animated (I can't remember exactly what he said, but I figure it can be looked up). The catch is that he said it in the context of a pun, so some people didn't catch the fact that he was really saying "this is an animation." Others did. So, maybe it wasn't crystal clear, but it wasn't something being hidden. While we're at it, CNN doesn't announce at all that the animation you're seeing is a Google Earth production. There's a logo in one corner of the screen, but it's easy to miss. Of course, the animation is so over-the-top that it's clearly not a real camera shot, but still.
Slashdot Mirror
The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"
I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!
Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.
Who can argue against that?
Probably a corporate-backed lawyer arguing in front of a friendly, corporate-backed judge. Quite successfully, I imagine.
Yeah, I wonder how long it'll be before the first person dresses in a full-body Clippy suit and goes to troll the stores. I want video!
Just to be pedantic, it was actually the Commander (Armstrong) who actually flew the LM to the surface, not the misnomered LMP, who mainly monitored things and called out warnings and readings. So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program. The transcript has Armstrong saying "I'm going to..." when he goes into P66.
If they're so inclined (i.e. if the public reaction is great enough), couldn't they re-try on more appropriate charges?
It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoDâ"at least after a while. Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it. This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk. I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim. Just like Amber Alerts. Now, the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping. Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends. If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing. They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after. Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.
Aside from being annoyed at the "cloud" buzzword I keep seeing, how (honestly, not rhetorical) would cloud computing help here? Wouldn't the often-updated news content (especially audio and video) still have to come, at its source, from CNN or whoever, since they're the ones writing/saying/videoing the news content? I must be missing something fundamental to cloud computing, so what is it, please?
Nah, I identify more with the WRU side anyway (I'm a social scientist, but don't tell anyone here!).
I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do. Troll on.
That said, this is ridiculous; just because a technology exists for something, you don't have to use it for everything. If you're truly interested in bringing your friends to (your) religion, Twitter's not gonna do it. You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever. Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious. This will just end up backfiring on them and making them look like fools.
I buy and use what I like and what I feel lets me work best. I don't think the Apple Tax is that high (hell, it might not even exist), but if Apple can command that price and have people pay it, what's wrong with that? It's just economics: things are worth only what people will pay for them.
Yeah, I fail to see how this is bad news for anyone. OK, if the language is code for creationism and is taught accordingly, then that's bad. But if the curriculum is taught as the language says, then it's essentially a rephrase of scientific philosophy: nothing is set in stone, and somebody should always be looking for weaknesses in theories usually taken for granted, just in case they're wrong. Who knows, maybe one of them will find that something in commonly-accepted evolution theory doesn't hold. That's not to say that creationism wins, but human knowledge does. The tendency in this evolution vs. creationism debate of BOTH sides to cling to their beliefs no matter what is troubling. Scientists need to remain always aware that they're probably wrong in the details, and to resist change or criticism makes them no better than creationists.
[To clarify, I am not a fundamentalist creationist or anything like that; I believe in evolution. But I don't treat the prevailing theories necessarily as Holy Gospel. Pun intended.]
Wait. Not excessively intrusive in light of her age and sex? What the hell does THAT mean? Since when does a person's gender or age mean that a strip search is less intrusive? You're making somebody who's dramatically underage, BUT old enough to know what's going on, strip naked. If anything, the fact that she's young and female makes it MORE intrusive (I think the average boy would shrug it off better than a girl would; I might be wrong in that assumption, though). It sounds like whoever said that thinks young girls are worth less than other people, but I hope they're not actually saying that.
I'm not quite THAT dumb. But the resolution only recognizes 14 March of this year as Pi Day, and 14 March 2009, will always be on a Saturday.
[curmudgeon]
Good work on declaring a National Pi Day on 3/14, for whatever significance a Congress-designated "National * Day" has, but they had to do it when it falls on a Saturday? Methinks that schools won't do much to teach about Pi and math on a Saturday, and a lot of the significance of the date would be lost if they taught about it on Friday or Monday, neither of which are 3/14.
[/curmudgeon]
Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speaking, but this particular situation raises the rather interesting prospect of a venue change or something similar. Unless of course Ray says otherwise.
If the court is to decide on the acceptability of something they do (i.e., streaming), can the RIAA fight for a change of venue? I mean, you wouldn't want a Ten-Commandments-in-the-courtroom case to be decided in a courtroom where the Ten Commandments are on the wall, right? Usually, if there's a conflict of interest, the judge can just recuse him/herself, but that wouldn't work here. Can RIAA put up a straight-faced argument about changing venue (say, to a court they think might be more friendly anyway)?
I read it differently. "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office..." To me, that means that, sure, he's President at noon, but he can't *execute* that office---do anything with it---until he takes the oath. (As an aside, I don't think that the 20th Amendment is the first time the starts-at-noon provision appears. I think it duplicated a provision from the Constitution proper, but changed the date.) What trips people up, I think, is that everyone seems to think that taking an oath requires a bible, the Chief Justice, and TV coverage. But all that's required is someone authorized to give oaths or affirmations as some sort of witness. A hurried new President could easily recite the oath in the presence of a notary or something while running somewhere, if necessary. Of course, realistically, no court would ever disqualify a President's action based on that under unusual circumstances. That takes a level of balls that probably doesn't exist.
I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?
Part of me wonders if this is not-trivially for publicity, like Greenpeace goes after Apple a couple times a year. But either way, not many people will care and I certainly doubt that they'll convert anybody. iTunes does, IIRC, sell non-DRM'd music (at a premium but also at a higher bitrate), and the DRM they do have is fairly unobtrusive as DRM goes. I don't like DRM'd media any more than the next person, but I can think of much worse offenders to go after than Apple.
I'm a theist (of a rather popular sort that I won't get into because I do NOT want to argue the merits of my belief---no one will win). Arguments about God and its existence are always pointless because God as most of us theists believe in it is omnipotent. And when you have an omnipotent God, the rules of logical argument break down. So, yes, when I consider how the Universe formed, I conclude that it cannot have created itself, that something must have brought it into being. I choose to call that thing God and to ascribe to it other qualities in line with my beliefs.
Yes, now, you say, I must deal with how God was created. No, I don't, because God as I believe in it is omnipotent; an omnipotent thing can do anything it wants, including create itself. Science isn't paradox-free, either. [1]
Besides, what of scientists who are also atheists? They say the universe was formed out of a larger multiverse. How was the multiverse formed? Infinite regression (I like that term) comes into play HERE, not when an omnipotent God exists (or is assumed to exist). I strongly doubt that it is possible to prove the existence of God to anyone aside from oneself, just as I strongly doubt that it is possible to prove God's nonexistence to anyone but oneself.
[1] I'm not saying this as a knock against science. I'm a student, not in a scientific field, but I very much enjoy and respect science and most scientists. I don't feel science needs to exist without a God. I do, however, agree that one cannot resort to "God did it" within the scientific method. (I just think the scientific method cannot answer everything.)
Nope, I was referring to the court's Opinion. I've had enough experience with legal "journalism" to know that the actual written opinion of the court is much more reliable than any news story written about it. I'm just too lazy to wade through the thing right now.
They didn't deal with the claims put forth by the environmentalists? Then what the hell DID they consider besides the Navy's side? (No, I didn't RTFO.)
A bit OT, and n00b me if you want, but how do you get the minis to work together as a grid? Do you use OS X Server, or something that works with the general OS X?
Maybe we should create our own standards committees.
Yeah! With Blackjack!
Calm down. IIRC, in the NBC (in the States) broadcast of the Opening Ceremony, the commentator said that the fireworks being shown then were animated (I can't remember exactly what he said, but I figure it can be looked up). The catch is that he said it in the context of a pun, so some people didn't catch the fact that he was really saying "this is an animation." Others did. So, maybe it wasn't crystal clear, but it wasn't something being hidden. While we're at it, CNN doesn't announce at all that the animation you're seeing is a Google Earth production. There's a logo in one corner of the screen, but it's easy to miss. Of course, the animation is so over-the-top that it's clearly not a real camera shot, but still.