Comment Re:We're so screwed. (Score 1) 237
21x to be exact
21x to be exact
you think being "watched" means they actually had eyes on him?
it means he's flagged in various databases if he buys plane ticket, particularly to leave the country, or purchases items that are also being "watched".
come on. the real world is like the Blacklist with unlimited agents and unlimited resources.
It's a cool show. James Spader is awesome in it.
But it's fantasy, just like your conception of what "watched" means.
Which is its the most common form of government in the world and no country has ever said "this aint working" and replaced it.
My boss has a Keurig machine, and he keeps stock of my favorite coffee pods (he is a good boss).
So to me, it's not about waste (the dumpster empties itself every Monday, and costs him the same whether full or empty), and it's not about the expense (I offered to give him money once, and it insulted him so I stopped doing that).
There is a science to coffee brewing, and the first part of that is starting with fresh beans and much of the rest is consistent temperature and brewing time and good water.
The Keurig system does a pretty good job on freshness (they keep ambient oxygen out), and does an excellent job on temperature and brewing time, and the filter on the faucet in the shop kitchen does a decent job making tap water tasty.
This all conspires to mean that every cup of Newman's Own Medium Roast Breakfast Blend tastes just like the one I had earlier today. Or last week. Or last year. Or two years ago, when he had a completely different Keurig machine.
To me, the taste of the end result is the advantage of pre-filled, disposable pods: It always produces an excellent cup of coffee. Nevermind the convenience: I can walk in the back door of the shop, start a cup of coffee in about 20 seconds, say Hi to the boss and go get my to-go cup in a couple of minutes later.
Of course, my situation is unique since I have no material or waste expense with the boss's Keurig. At home, we go through a few 10-cup drip-brewed thermal carafes of coffee a day. Sometimes if we expect company during the day we fire up the antique 60-cup percolator. We seldom feel that we've wasted any coffee. But the stuff I make at home, though very tasty and much, much cheaper is never as consistent as the boss's Keurig.
This stinks of shill.
My doctor told me to drink a cup of tea after a hot bath...
I look forward to seeing that evidence.
Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.
None of the rest of your comment bears reading, as its A) bullshit, and B) all countered by research that you still haven't yet, have you? Hmmm?
Ah yes.
The Elephant Whistle defense.
And did you seriously just reference John Lott, and then use the phrase "well researched" in the same sentence? You dumbass: That's like citing Senator Inhofe as your source for global warming data.
If you would reference Lott, you should a bit about him first:
From ( http://www.armedwithreason.com... ):
Lott’s work is filled with bizarre results that are inconsistent with established facts in criminology.
According to Lott’s data, for example, rural areas are more dangerous than cities. FBI data clearly shows this is not the case. Lott’s model finds that both increasing unemployment and decreasing the number of middle-aged and elderly black women would produce substantial decreases in the homicide rate, conclusions that are so bizarre that they should cast doubt on the entire study.
From ( http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~la... , basically 47 pages of why "correlation is not causation"):
Only 20% of permits were issued to women, but the male and female homi-
cides rate went down by the same amount and the reduction in the rape rate
was similar to the decrease in assaults. Lott speculates that guns are four
times as effective for females. While this is not impossible it seems more
likely that the decreases were caused by some other factor that applied to
males and females equally.
Or from my favorite:
The empirical studies of right-to-carry laws preceding Lott and Mustard’s study may be flawed,2" but if these studies have any value, they suggest that right-to-carry laws and high gun ownership levels either have no significant effect on crime or else increase it Both Ludwig and Black and Nagin conclude that no credible empirical evidence supports the judgment that right-to-carry laws deter crime. At this point, there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings.
Of course the right-to-carry cure for violence worked for the Hatfields and McCoys. It worked for Bernhard Goetz. It worked on the American frontier. It is being copied in Rwanda today. According to John Lott and David Mustard, right-to-carry can work for us too.
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/v...
Although let's be honest, you didn't look into shit, and you never actually read Lott's research either. (Helpful link: http://www.johnlott.org/ )
You just picked up the name from the NRA or some other group of idiots.
When did knowing the law become a problem looking for a technical solution?
I just want tools. How I use the tools is my business, not the tools' business. If I run afoul of the law, I'm the one that goes to jail -- not the tool.
This so much! I've long thought that if I ever ran for political office, high up on my platform bullet-point list would be decriminalization of non-violent activities like drug use... and redirecting that money toward preventing and remedying violent ones, including property crime under that umbrella.
It's not really copyright infringement either because the information stolen is not a creative work that copyright pertains to. Secrets are copy-protected by being secret, not by having laws against copying them.
Also, that information is not your identity; it is, at best, identifying information.
It's really just fraud, plain and simple.
The word you want for "non-abstract" is "concrete". Literally "pulled apart" and "stuck together" in latin.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
