Sorry, almost 30 years ago. Damn! I'm getting old.
Almost 20 years ago I worked on the development of a mobile robot security guard at Denning Mobile Robotics. When we tried to sell to a "large security vendor" we were told that the robot was expensive and if it were destroyed, they would be out capital. If they hire low-wage humans, when they get killed they can hire another one cheaply and insurance (that the human pays for) will take care of the rest. Second, what does the robot cost? If it is patrolling a Walmart, it is likely that the robot is the most valueable thing in the room and will, itself, be the target of theft.
Now, toss a blanket over it and you have completely disabled it.
(1) They hire idiots
(2) They tools they have won't find shit
Ist, I've flown a bit lately, and lets be honest, abusive and uneducated are the only words I have for TSA. Just assholes with a uniform there to make your life miserable, not to make people safe, but to make people "feel" safe. A prison cell with a locked door is pretty safe too.
2nd, none of the toys and scanners they have can find anything they are looking for because they really don't understand them or their use.
Welcome to the police state where abuse of citizens means an effective police force.
This was wrong and there needs to be criminal charges against companies that do this. "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it.
Besides, run Debian, you'll realize how much Ubuntu doesn't contribute.
Ban it out right, but be careful.
The problem with trans-fat is that it is mainly a man-made product designed to increase shelf life by stabilizing fats. Sounds great, right? Well, "unstable fats" are a good thing for animals because they do stuff and "stable fats" bad because they don't. Think of an unstable fat as a clean dust rag, think of a stable fat as a dirty one.
Anyway, nutrition is complicated science and we are learning new things every day. There are people who will knowingly create products that are less than healthy to make a buck and most people would not eat them if they knew and could reasonably understand the facts. The facts are complicated, like "high fructose corn syrup" "its just sugar" campaign.100% factual, but a lie. It may be "just sugar," but it's molecular makeup is bad because it is unbalanced and made of mono saccharides with more fructose than glucose. Its not sucrose or maltose, which is what the body is used to when it comes to sugar.
Anyway, when ethical behavior won't keep a product off the shelves after we've discovered it is unhealthy, then the government must step in with the force of law.
obviously haven't used bing recently
Quite wrong, I have and I am not impressed.
Or Microsoft buys a few more servers for Bing.
If, of course, Bing were usable in any way. Bing is terrible. Bing makes it clear that Microsoft is on its way out as a dictator of the market. Besides capitalizing on the dumb luck of becoming the dominant OS company in the 1980s. It is simply amazing to me how long they were able to keep that going.
One has to admit that they are an important part of the Internet infrastructure. Billions and Billions of dollars of commerce are generated by Google searches for companies that have little or no direct contact with Google. Every time a government does this, Google should shut that country off until the various entities that DEPEND on the free exchange of information complain and withhold campaign contributions/bribes.
Yahoo has them.
I expected to see a sled at some point.
I HOPE this is a slippery slope that exposes all religions as cults. Scientology is just one or the more ridiculous and exploitive ones. Any organization that uses unprovable assertions without any reasonable scientific framework to exploit its gullible members should be shut down.
Unless somebody has proof that somebody was trying to create a back door then stop with all of the "X-Files" shit
It was put in surreptitiously, is that not enough to conclude it was intentional? Its one thing to be a skeptic, but it is quite another to ignore facts.
Statistics are wonderful things, if you choose the right one you can make any case you want. I want to know more about the warrentees. I want to hear about the nature of the issues. Recoverable errors vs complete death. Infant mortality vs just wear.
Just letting the government do this stuff without fighting is cowardly. Our grandfathers fought in WWII. We need to fight the fight at home. We need to fight this stuff. MAKE IT PUBLIC show that the U.S.A. is becoming worse the the old soviet union. We have secret laws and secret police. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work! The general populace can stay in denial if the news can be drowned out. I believe (hope) we, as a country, may wake up if these sorts of things make lots of noise.
I voted for Obama, and while I don't think the alternatives would have been any better, we need a new kind of president that will not defend these policies. Terrorism has hit every free state. It is a fact of life. We either deal with the risks of freedom or give it up to these evil bastards. (insert Franklin quote)
Get a national security letter, fight it.
Get a court order, challenge it in a higher court, rinse, repeat.
Call the ACLU
Donate to the ACLU
encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.
The problem with reviewing or even understanding 2001, today, is that you are critiquing it out of time.
1st, that it was "all special effects," well, yes, but more importantly they are "accurate" special effects. Even today, 2001 portrays the PHYSICS of space travel better than any other movie ever made. It is one thing to use computers to create "action" with special effects, 2001 portrayed "space." I can't emphasize this enough. In 1969, this was simply revolutionary. Star Trek was fantasy, we had men going to the moon and trek was clearly scifi. 2001, at the time, seemed real and possible. It was science fiction in the classic sense that the science was real and the story was fiction.
It must be hard for people 40 years old and younger to imagine this period in time. About 12 years 10 years prior, the world changed with Sputnik. We were moving from weather balloons to weather satellites, science was changing everything and we were dreadfully afraid of the Russians beating us. 2001 was a view of space travel attainable from the perspective of the Apollo missions. It was astutely political. It asserted evolution. It worked in "our" albeit future, world.
Unfortunately, 2001 also suffered from concepts that are difficult to visualize. I agree with another post, it is almost impossible to understand without having read the book first.
Still one of my "Most Important Movies Ever Made"