The same could be said about fingerprints, though I agree with you. That is a very interesting case, I wonder if whoever is eventually caught and brought in could argue that they failed to give him a speedy trial, since they would by trying[?] him years after charging him.
Incorrect, you never have a right to not be arrested, and you never have a right to not have your home searched with a search warrant. These are not things that change only when you are arrested.
I don't think you properly read what I said. I would never support the taking and storing of DNA of people who were merely arrested for exactly this reason. I could be convinced to support the storing of DNA of convicted felons, but absolutely no more, and it would take a lot of convincing.
For the same reasons that it is only fair to put people that have been convicted in prison, but not people who haven't been.
*Note: I don't think it is fair to do this to anyone, least of all innocent babies. I may be able to become convinced it is ok to do this to people who are convicted felons (that is a pretty unlikely 'may'), but you'll never convince me this is ok to do to people who are merely arrested.
What... What!?! To prevent the system from singling people out for abuse we are going to abuse everybody? Only a lawyer could think this wasn't perverted logic.
I know that the money we allocate to science is inconsequential. We could fund dozens of NASAs, as well as any other scientific project you can think of, if we really wanted too. The space program has never choked off scientific progress, just the opposite.
Here's an example for ya: Dolphins will not jump out of tuna nets (which only extend up to the surface, but not above) to save their own lives. The things clearly know how to jump, and love doing it, but are unable to recognize when they are being trapped, or if they do, how to escape.
Meanwhile hollywood loves to portray the things with near-human intelligence.
Your mistake is quite old, it is one that has been made by many people before you. You mistakenly believe that if we participate in manned spaceflight, that means we must be missing out on other things. Real life is not like Civilization, we don't work on one scientific advance at a time.
Problem is, I have yet to see another proposal that would have as effective a driving force for science as the space program. Historically, the two greatest motivators of technological advance have been space flight, and war. I think we can both agree the former is to be prefered.
If we were willing to use slave labor and were not concerned with a good number of them being worked to death, we could do it no problem. Don't confuse barbarism with skill or ingenuity.
Yeah, just like there were absolutely no benefits to going to the moon. Right? Right??
Give it a rest, it has been demonstrated and documented numerous times that manned space missions, particularly ambitious ones, drive scientific progress in a way that benefits humanity as a whole. Progress that actually helps to solve problems here on Earth.
Ah yes, the good old 'science can only do one thing at a time' fallacy. Do you really think marine biologists are not studying dolphins, or that radio astronomers are in any way preventing the work of biologists? Real life isn't like Civilization, society doesn't work on a single technological advance at a time.
You people keep on saying this, but it is absolute bullshit. Have you ever tried comparing the cost of manned spaceflight with... well... just about anything else the government does? It is damned cheap.
If they feel they can maintain artistic integrity than they sometimes certainly do. I first learned of Charles Stross by reading one of the chapters of Accelerando from a "best sci-fi of 200*" collection.
This was a rhetorical question but you are correct and it proves my point. There are numerous reasons to split a work into pieces and name them besides "so that a record label can sell individual pieces on the internet".
A fellow slashdot commenter kindly suggested that you make use of tcpdump to help resolve your issues. You verbally harassed him for his trouble, saying that you have already used it to review your logs.
I wasn't asking a rhetorical question about the necessity of chapters (though, if you haven't noticed, some books do forgo them). I was asking a rhetorical question about the necessity of giving chapters names (which again, not all books do).
If you really think packet logs are the only logs relevant to your issue, or the only appropriate use of tcpdump, then I'm afraid I'm at a loss of words to describe the new level of idiocy you have achieved. The best I can do is offer forth my congratulations.
Slashdot Mirror
The same could be said about fingerprints, though I agree with you. That is a very interesting case, I wonder if whoever is eventually caught and brought in could argue that they failed to give him a speedy trial, since they would by trying[?] him years after charging him.
Incorrect, you never have a right to not be arrested, and you never have a right to not have your home searched with a search warrant. These are not things that change only when you are arrested.
I don't think you properly read what I said. I would never support the taking and storing of DNA of people who were merely arrested for exactly this reason. I could be convinced to support the storing of DNA of convicted felons , but absolutely no more, and it would take a lot of convincing.
For the same reasons that it is only fair to put people that have been convicted in prison, but not people who haven't been.
*Note: I don't think it is fair to do this to anyone, least of all innocent babies. I may be able to become convinced it is ok to do this to people who are convicted felons (that is a pretty unlikely 'may'), but you'll never convince me this is ok to do to people who are merely arrested.
What... What!?! To prevent the system from singling people out for abuse we are going to abuse everybody? Only a lawyer could think this wasn't perverted logic.
1) Buy ebook
2) Cover it with nutmeg
3) ???
4) Sell it to calibre-not-output
5) PROFIT!!!
I know that the money we allocate to science is inconsequential. We could fund dozens of NASAs, as well as any other scientific project you can think of, if we really wanted too. The space program has never choked off scientific progress, just the opposite.
It sounds like you are saying elephants survived because they were given the time to evolve, not because they were smarter than other animals.
Here's an example for ya: Dolphins will not jump out of tuna nets (which only extend up to the surface, but not above) to save their own lives. The things clearly know how to jump, and love doing it, but are unable to recognize when they are being trapped, or if they do, how to escape.
Meanwhile hollywood loves to portray the things with near-human intelligence.
Your mistake is quite old, it is one that has been made by many people before you. You mistakenly believe that if we participate in manned spaceflight, that means we must be missing out on other things. Real life is not like Civilization, we don't work on one scientific advance at a time.
Problem is, I have yet to see another proposal that would have as effective a driving force for science as the space program. Historically, the two greatest motivators of technological advance have been space flight, and war. I think we can both agree the former is to be prefered.
If we were willing to use slave labor and were not concerned with a good number of them being worked to death, we could do it no problem. Don't confuse barbarism with skill or ingenuity.
Yeah, just like there were absolutely no benefits to going to the moon. Right? Right??
Give it a rest, it has been demonstrated and documented numerous times that manned space missions, particularly ambitious ones, drive scientific progress in a way that benefits humanity as a whole. Progress that actually helps to solve problems here on Earth.
Ah yes, the good old 'science can only do one thing at a time' fallacy. Do you really think marine biologists are not studying dolphins, or that radio astronomers are in any way preventing the work of biologists? Real life isn't like Civilization, society doesn't work on a single technological advance at a time.
You people keep on saying this, but it is absolute bullshit. Have you ever tried comparing the cost of manned spaceflight with... well... just about anything else the government does? It is damned cheap.
GNU Radio.
Not like this is actually a practical solution though ;)
Hmm, it's not often I make a joke that I myself do not get...
"Sign" is in fact how I normally hear it in english.
If they feel they can maintain artistic integrity than they sometimes certainly do. I first learned of Charles Stross by reading one of the chapters of Accelerando from a "best sci-fi of 200*" collection.
This was a rhetorical question but you are correct and it proves my point. There are numerous reasons to split a work into pieces and name them besides "so that a record label can sell individual pieces on the internet".
It used to, but it currently doesn't. It never did for ACs though.
On the other hand, a huge number of people are actually living past the age of 30.
A fellow slashdot commenter kindly suggested that you make use of tcpdump to help resolve your issues. You verbally harassed him for his trouble, saying that you have already used it to review your logs.
Ass-fiend.
I wasn't asking a rhetorical question about the necessity of chapters (though, if you haven't noticed, some books do forgo them). I was asking a rhetorical question about the necessity of giving chapters names (which again, not all books do).
If you really think packet logs are the only logs relevant to your issue, or the only appropriate use of tcpdump, then I'm afraid I'm at a loss of words to describe the new level of idiocy you have achieved. The best I can do is offer forth my congratulations.
Yeah! Damn tidal forces sapping our precious rotational momentum and lengthening our days! The moon is a communist!