What about the responsibility of society to have rational basis in the creation of the rules? What about the responsibility of society to only have rules that there is actually a valid interest in making?
Quite simply the evidence for "phones use as driving problem on the road" I find...dubious. Far more relevant the evidence that drivers who get in accidents while using phones, do not get in less accidents without them....and as a group.... drive worst and take more risks while using their phones than other drivers who don't get in accidents while using them.
Clearly the problem is poorly skilled drivers with terrible risk assessment ability, which is completely independent of phones and likely existed and were getting in accidents before phones came around to distinguish them.
Of course there is a great comment by "Jeff" if you scroll down a bit on that page:
So as an evolutionary biologist I guess Iâ(TM)m not much fun to point out that skeletal evidence suggests that most hunter-gatherers before the invention of agriculture actually lived well into their 60âs and 70âs if they made it past child-hood. Unfortunately hunting and gathering can only support small populations and they were displaced by populations that engaged in agriculture. Ag allows for large populations on small amounts of land because of intensification of resource extraction. This led to the rise of cities (and more influentially armies) since not every member of the society had to produce their own food. This also led to extremely poor sanitary conditions and the beginning of the first âcrowdâ(TM) diseases like influenza and syphilis. These types of societies came to dominate human territories and it is these arrangements we associate with ânot living past 30â. Ok Iâ(TM)m done, sorry.
So save that comic for the next time you want to blow an evolutionary biologists top off:)
Whoa there, set down the white man's burden for a second. Letting? are you their stern father now? Are they under your roof and going to play by your rules?
This new restriction is on US Government funding. This is not about letting, its about helping. We have, and rightly so, little to no say in what they choose for themselves. We don't LET them do anything.
Except they mostly already shut-up. While they were yelling "clean coal" the same way Microsoft was yelling "GUI Sucks", while implementing Windows.
Lets not forget that these regulations didn't come about...UNTIL there were ALREADY NO PLANS to build another coal plant, and no expectation that anyone in the US would even be trying to build one, in the next 30 years!
My bet is they made this announcement because it was an easy decision to make to cut off something that's hardly being used. I am sure it will be every bit as effective as.... me sacrificing the hub caps off my car to end world hunger.
> If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six > largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of > international gun crime/murder stats. Gang activity is responsible for about 48% of violent crime in > most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in some.
More than that, the thing about gun laws is: You only find them where there is crime. I don't mean to say gun laws cause crime....crime causes gun laws. The problem is gun laws don't solve crime, and don't address any of the issues that do cause it.
So you end up with more onerous gun laws in places with more gun violence, and then yet more because you didn't bother to address the actual causes....which leads to more gun laws.
Fact is, you nailed it. Drug laws create the market, which fund the gangs which drive the crime.... yet, they don't decrease addiction rates. So clearly the answer to the crime and violence is to ban guns. Totally gets right at the root of the issue doesn't it?
I never considered that people used it that way, mostly because usually these days anyone talking about them is talking about them on a GPS.
That said, what I find funny about this is, way back when GPS was new to the public, I remember people referring to lat/long as your "missile address" (or something very close to that that meant basically the same thing).
Lol funny you would ask that. I don't just remember it, my wife actually just found it while cleaning out the storage area in the crawlspace by the roof. First she saw the cartirdiges and thought it was an old Atari, then she saw the "Atari" and got very confused that it had a keyboard built in... and a tape deck.....:)
> Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities > weren't illegal in the first place.
Yes but, even if they were not, how could you trust that they never would be? The problem with surveillance is NOT that you are being watched and have to trust the watcher. Its that you have to trust him, and his replacement, and his replacement, and your kids will grow up having to do the same.
Were there no innocent activities that were illegal, what assurance would you have that they wouldn't become illegal AFTER the survillance was added?
Actually, while I am no expert, I do believe that the ICBMs are not actually guided by GPS. A little clicking around wikipedia seems to indicate they use inertial guidance, and some have an "Address book" of 8 targets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118A_Peacekeeper).
A while back I lived at a place with A/C units installed through the walls. It was nice except birds used to like to try and nest on the tops of the units, which made a terrible mess. I was going to get those spikes that are used to deter them when someone advised me different: Get some rubber snakes from the toy store and put those on top of the A/C units.
Worked like a charm. Lived there another couple of years, didn't have trouble with birds on those A/Cs anymore.
> "I don't blame him" and "innocent" are two different things.
I don't make much distinction and if I did I would point out that there was no scene where he was prosecuted and convicted for anything so, he is in fact, innocent. Just as we know Al Capone was innocent of everything except tax evasion.
I mean generally speaking I am against any sort of non-consensual violence, but I am no pacifist. I am perfectly fine taking the general view that committing non-defensive violent acts can merit a response. The response being merited, I have trouble, personally, assigning guilt to a person who makes it.
Given what the story implies they tried to do, I would even say he did the right thing. He demonstrated being an upright citizen, and not being able to do it himself, he contracted the job out. It was still the right thing to do, and he still paid for it with his own hands and time.
And another "Ive been listening to too much Bill Hicks in the car" post: "Its like we all just woke up from a car crash and all we know is someone named Reagan was driving, and there was this Thatcher woman in the back seat yelling 'turn right, go right, turn right, go right'"
> The only little problem with that is that krivda.ru and the likes are even more tightly controlled by the > Russian government and will present whatever information they have in an even more slanted way, >probably as a part of a plan to harm you.
Right well this is why I personally advocate a diverse set of news sources, including the russian ones (I like RT myself). Sure, they are biased, but I take issue with "probably as a part of a plan to harm you."
I don't think the Russian Gov gives a flying fuck whether they harm me or not, but, I also don't think they give a flying fuck about most news issues that I do....and that indifference is part of why I can trust them on many issues. Sure anything involving Russian political interests probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and they probably do have some bias in which stories they choose but, overall, I know that when it comes to a number of issues, they don't really have enough skin in the game to bother with a lot of spin on issues that are not central to them.
That is, I doubt their American division (which seems to be produced by people here in the US) gets many calls about US stories that don't directly involve Russia or whatever proxy pawn is todays subject of discussion.
I would have thought so. It also makes me think, maybe you can fuck those guys one better too. I imagine a system that every 200 failed logins or so saves the password and makes it "valid" for 10 minutes serving up bogus messages that indicate success to anyone using it.
a real user having login trouble is unlikely to ever see it, but a cracker having to hand verify every 200th attempt or so would likely make the task cumbersome.
Personally I would like to not be responsible for murderous adventures around the globe more; would gladly give those up to not be part of an abusive empire.
He contracted retribution because the so-called justice system failed him. Those cock suckers walked free from court the same day, they even smiled at him. They got off after beating his daughter for resisting their attempt to rape her.
> simply accelerating directly to escape velocity at the surface.
Doesn't that assume no atmosphere? I would think that such a high velocity would tend to require a lot of fuel pushing against air to not fall below escape velocity for the current height, until you leave the atmosphere anyway.
> it's still practically impossible to get anything off the surface of the Sun
True, but landing anything on the surface of the Sun has its own problems:p
Right because Isreal is totally the innocent undertaker, who came to the Big Bad US looking for justice that he couldn't get through normal means:)
If I was going to use a Godfather analogy I would go more for:
If Don Corleone had all the judges, and the politicians in New York, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists."
Right, and that distinction was exactly my point. None of those other incidents that GP mentioned were plausibly the Presidents fault in any way, however, this allegation very specifically implicates the President's involvement.
Well why should the President know about most of this? If some guy in shipping fucks up your order, are you shocked when the CEO of the company isn't personally aware of the status of your package?
That is why this case is different, because this presents a case that, in fact, he did know; and not only did he know but since:
NSA, which sent the intelligence gathered straight to the White House bypassing the agency's headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, according to the report.
Is a very specific claim in a report put out by the German government, and a very damning one.
That was my point actually. An airline should be free to implement whatever experience they want for their customer. The Government, on the other hand, is supposed to have restrictions on their powers, since they actually get to impose their regulations on everyone, regardless of which choices they make.
So if the TSA was a division of some airline, it would be one thing, you could choose another airline, they aren't, they are with the government.
This means their powers are supposed to be limited. It means they are supposed to operate as if they believe people deserve liberty until proven otherwise in a court of law and that they shouldn't be detained any more than is needed by reasonable standards like probable cause.
The TSA is little more than job creating fear mongering. Creating a federal job is no reason to detain or arrest someone for being a private person who wants to go about their business unmolested. Its a basic denial of civil rights, exactly what the government was founded to defend against.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be surprised to find these issues with Debian, they tend to be very good about avoiding breaking compatibility with different options.
So you are shortening it to "Your right to swing your fist ends"
What about the responsibility of society to have rational basis in the creation of the rules? What about the responsibility of society to only have rules that there is actually a valid interest in making?
Quite simply the evidence for "phones use as driving problem on the road" I find...dubious. Far more relevant the evidence that drivers who get in accidents while using phones, do not get in less accidents without them....and as a group.... drive worst and take more risks while using their phones than other drivers who don't get in accidents while using them.
Clearly the problem is poorly skilled drivers with terrible risk assessment ability, which is completely independent of phones and likely existed and were getting in accidents before phones came around to distinguish them.
I loved this idea so much I had to find it, took one google image search:
http://twentytwowords.com/2011/06/21/cavemen-and-the-problem-with-living-organically/
Of course there is a great comment by "Jeff" if you scroll down a bit on that page:
So save that comic for the next time you want to blow an evolutionary biologists top off :)
> Even if you buy into letting them do it today
Whoa there, set down the white man's burden for a second. Letting? are you their stern father now? Are they under your roof and going to play by your rules?
This new restriction is on US Government funding. This is not about letting, its about helping. We have, and rightly so, little to no say in what they choose for themselves. We don't LET them do anything.
Except they mostly already shut-up. While they were yelling "clean coal" the same way Microsoft was yelling "GUI Sucks", while implementing Windows.
Lets not forget that these regulations didn't come about...UNTIL there were ALREADY NO PLANS to build another coal plant, and no expectation that anyone in the US would even be trying to build one, in the next 30 years!
My bet is they made this announcement because it was an easy decision to make to cut off something that's hardly being used. I am sure it will be every bit as effective as.... me sacrificing the hub caps off my car to end world hunger.
> If you take out the stats for inner-city drug-gang-related firearm murders/shootings in the top-six
> largest US cities with the strictest, most onerous anti-gun laws, the US is right in the middle of
> international gun crime/murder stats. Gang activity is responsible for about 48% of violent crime in
> most jurisdictions, and up to 90% in some.
More than that, the thing about gun laws is: You only find them where there is crime. I don't mean to say gun laws cause crime....crime causes gun laws. The problem is gun laws don't solve crime, and don't address any of the issues that do cause it.
So you end up with more onerous gun laws in places with more gun violence, and then yet more because you didn't bother to address the actual causes....which leads to more gun laws.
Fact is, you nailed it. Drug laws create the market, which fund the gangs which drive the crime.... yet, they don't decrease addiction rates. So clearly the answer to the crime and violence is to ban guns. Totally gets right at the root of the issue doesn't it?
I never considered that people used it that way, mostly because usually these days anyone talking about them is talking about them on a GPS.
That said, what I find funny about this is, way back when GPS was new to the public, I remember people referring to lat/long as your "missile address" (or something very close to that that meant basically the same thing).
Lol funny you would ask that. I don't just remember it, my wife actually just found it while cleaning out the storage area in the crawlspace by the roof. First she saw the cartirdiges and thought it was an old Atari, then she saw the "Atari" and got very confused that it had a keyboard built in... and a tape deck..... :)
> Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities
> weren't illegal in the first place.
Yes but, even if they were not, how could you trust that they never would be? The problem with surveillance is NOT that you are being watched and have to trust the watcher. Its that you have to trust him, and his replacement, and his replacement, and your kids will grow up having to do the same.
Were there no innocent activities that were illegal, what assurance would you have that they wouldn't become illegal AFTER the survillance was added?
Actually, while I am no expert, I do believe that the ICBMs are not actually guided by GPS. A little clicking around wikipedia seems to indicate they use inertial guidance, and some have an "Address book" of 8 targets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118A_Peacekeeper).
So not spot on but pretty close.
A while back I lived at a place with A/C units installed through the walls. It was nice except birds used to like to try and nest on the tops of the units, which made a terrible mess. I was going to get those spikes that are used to deter them when someone advised me different: Get some rubber snakes from the toy store and put those on top of the A/C units.
Worked like a charm. Lived there another couple of years, didn't have trouble with birds on those A/Cs anymore.
> "I don't blame him" and "innocent" are two different things.
I don't make much distinction and if I did I would point out that there was no scene where he was prosecuted and convicted for anything so, he is in fact, innocent. Just as we know Al Capone was innocent of everything except tax evasion.
I mean generally speaking I am against any sort of non-consensual violence, but I am no pacifist. I am perfectly fine taking the general view that committing non-defensive violent acts can merit a response. The response being merited, I have trouble, personally, assigning guilt to a person who makes it.
Given what the story implies they tried to do, I would even say he did the right thing. He demonstrated being an upright citizen, and not being able to do it himself, he contracted the job out. It was still the right thing to do, and he still paid for it with his own hands and time.
He was a good man. A paragon of virtue.
And another "Ive been listening to too much Bill Hicks in the car" post:
"Its like we all just woke up from a car crash and all we know is someone named Reagan was driving, and there was this Thatcher woman in the back seat yelling 'turn right, go right, turn right, go right'"
> The only little problem with that is that krivda.ru and the likes are even more tightly controlled by the
> Russian government and will present whatever information they have in an even more slanted way,
>probably as a part of a plan to harm you.
Right well this is why I personally advocate a diverse set of news sources, including the russian ones (I like RT myself). Sure, they are biased, but I take issue with "probably as a part of a plan to harm you."
I don't think the Russian Gov gives a flying fuck whether they harm me or not, but, I also don't think they give a flying fuck about most news issues that I do....and that indifference is part of why I can trust them on many issues. Sure anything involving Russian political interests probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and they probably do have some bias in which stories they choose but, overall, I know that when it comes to a number of issues, they don't really have enough skin in the game to bother with a lot of spin on issues that are not central to them.
That is, I doubt their American division (which seems to be produced by people here in the US) gets many calls about US stories that don't directly involve Russia or whatever proxy pawn is todays subject of discussion.
I would have thought so. It also makes me think, maybe you can fuck those guys one better too.
I imagine a system that every 200 failed logins or so saves the password and makes it "valid" for 10 minutes serving up bogus messages that indicate success to anyone using it.
a real user having login trouble is unlikely to ever see it, but a cracker having to hand verify every 200th attempt or so would likely make the task cumbersome.
Well my first thought on this was.....its a smart move for desktops, but I intend to continue using sysvinit on servers for a long long time to come.
If the bot can't fill out the captcha correctly then the captcha ends up being one bitchin rate limit. They get a blazing 0 responses per second!
Personally I would like to not be responsible for murderous adventures around the globe more; would gladly give those up to not be part of an abusive empire.
He contracted retribution because the so-called justice system failed him. Those cock suckers walked free from court the same day, they even smiled at him. They got off after beating his daughter for resisting their attempt to rape her.
I find no fault at all with him.
> simply accelerating directly to escape velocity at the surface.
Doesn't that assume no atmosphere? I would think that such a high velocity would tend to require a lot of fuel pushing against air to not fall below escape velocity for the current height, until you leave the atmosphere anyway.
> it's still practically impossible to get anything off the surface of the Sun
True, but landing anything on the surface of the Sun has its own problems :p
Right because Isreal is totally the innocent undertaker, who came to the Big Bad US looking for justice that he couldn't get through normal means :)
If I was going to use a Godfather analogy I would go more for:
Right, and that distinction was exactly my point. None of those other incidents that GP mentioned were plausibly the Presidents fault in any way, however, this allegation very specifically implicates the President's involvement.
Well why should the President know about most of this? If some guy in shipping fucks up your order, are you shocked when the CEO of the company isn't personally aware of the status of your package?
That is why this case is different, because this presents a case that, in fact, he did know; and not only did he know but since:
Is a very specific claim in a report put out by the German government, and a very damning one.
That was my point actually. An airline should be free to implement whatever experience they want for their customer. The Government, on the other hand, is supposed to have restrictions on their powers, since they actually get to impose their regulations on everyone, regardless of which choices they make.
So if the TSA was a division of some airline, it would be one thing, you could choose another airline, they aren't, they are with the government.
This means their powers are supposed to be limited. It means they are supposed to operate as if they believe people deserve liberty until proven otherwise in a court of law and that they shouldn't be detained any more than is needed by reasonable standards like probable cause.
The TSA is little more than job creating fear mongering. Creating a federal job is no reason to detain or arrest someone for being a private person who wants to go about their business unmolested. Its a basic denial of civil rights, exactly what the government was founded to defend against.