You know,that's a damn good point. Property owners sometimes are required to grant easements that lets someone cross their land, but that doesn't mean those people can do anything. For example, if you have easement rights across a field, that doesn't mean you can stop and have a picnic. It means you can cross, not loiter.
You can take photographs from public property all you want, but some lawyer needs to look up whether or not someone who has an easement across their property has ever successfully stopped people who are legally crossing it from taking photographs while crossing.
The US can torture anyone we let it torture, until we make it stop.
Although, FYI, it's not only torturing non-citizens non-POWs currently. It claims, right now, it's only torturing people it asserts are not citizen and not POWs. Which is not the same thing as actually only torturing people who are actually not citizens and not POWs.
The AC is correct, but more to the point, those labels actually aren't even attempting to keep you from reselling the product...the company doesn't give a damn what you do, they can't get in trouble for it. The FDA just requires that all food sold have a nutritional information on it, so the company is legally required to warn you that reselling the bags inside isn't allowed.
And, yes, you can photocopy the actual nutritional information and attach it to the package and legally sell it, although you should remember to change the number of servings and whatnot.
Or alternately you can sell it as a 'restaurant' or however that works, they don't have provide labeling on their food, they just have to have estimates of nutritional information available on demand.
If I leave your house traveling at the speed of light, and look back an hour later, I'll see your house exactly as I left it. (Pretending that time would actually pass enough for me to 'see' anything.)
So, 'relatively', anyone who also left at the same time, in any direction, at any speed, looks like they're 'relatively' an hour away! Because they're standing at my starting point motionless!
Of course, as no one can actually do anything at the speed of light, even assuming they could reach it, this concept is rather stupid.
Which is why all this discussion is rather stupid. The original poster apparently doesn't realize that when scientists talk about seeing things farther away than the age of the universe, they're actually talking about where they are now, not where they are when the light that is now reaching us left them.
I love how they think about computer security on BSG.
For those who haven't see it, on Battlestar Galatica, they're fighting an enemy they assume can near-instantly take over any computer, especially any network connected to the outside comms.
So they have plenty of computers, but none of them are connected to any others. (Although they can network them in an emergency...and the one time they did that to calculate something faster, they ended up having the computers almost taken over. Smartly, they only used non-critical computers.) They can reset and reload any of the computer in a few minutes. Their comm system appears to be some sort of analog switched and radio network, without any sort of 'modem' that would allow it to connect to any computer at all, and with hardware controls.
Because, dumbass, it's easy to have walk-in escorted access to most offices on some pretense or another. But they tend to stop you if they see you carrying things out, or even if they see you typing on their computer.
Spammers do not give a flying fuck if an account is actually valid or not. If it accepts mail, or has ever accepted mail at all, it is a 'real account' and they will spam it. I even have accounts that have never have accepted mail, and get hit with dozens of spam attempts a day. (Which I do now accept as a spamtrap, but whatever.)
Google is actually making it infinitely harder on themselves by accepting all mail on certain domains, as now spammers have a huge list of 'valid' accounts.
Which in theory means 'more wasted time of spammers', but in actuality spammers are not limited by time. They have near-infinite resources to throw at problems.
Ah, yes. Because Google doing a single database query at that point is much much harder than accepting the mail, doing a database query to try to deliver it, generating a response, and mailing it out.
The reason that there are more Democrats in the media than Republicans is that the more informed someone is, the more likely they are to be Democrat.
If you look at our economy now most of the big numbers are approximately the same as when Clinton was in office, but if you look at the news there are a lot more articles about the US recession under the Bush presidency.
For example, statistically, you appear likely to be a Republican, as you are apparently unware we are, in fact, in a recession now, and people were predicting that last year as the housing prices crises started to make itself aware.
Whereas we were not in one in mid-2000. You have confused the tech bubble busting and subsequent stock market weirdness with the recession. No. The stock market behaved wildly from mid-2000 to 2003, but the recession didn't start until the end of 2000 at the earliest, and more people agree it didn't start until March 2001. A few people losing their shirt in tech stocks is not a recession.
It's not okay if you have someone from the other side counter with the truth, either. Because there are still lies being aired.
To stop 'bias', the news media needs to stop airing 'political claims', period. Do not, even, under any circumstances, report 'political claims'. Report facts.
'Bias' is a non-issue. It's a bunch of crazy Republicans claiming that any story that involves civil rights or justice or education or people dying in war or anything is somehow a 'left' story.
The actual problem with the media is they say 'Person X claimed this, and Person Y claimed this, and we're too stupid to actually figure out what's going on.' instead of saying 'Person X said something today, and Person Y lied in response. We'll be covering these shocking lies all evening.'.
There's no such thing as 'economic freedom' when you have limited liability corporations. Talking about 'freedom' for fictional entities is sheer nonsense.
As you may be aware, under the 'Communism Rule' of politics, any philosophy that puts repeatedly people in power under its 'label', who then become wildly unpopular and/or power mad, resulting in the supporters being forced to distance themselves by claiming that said person is not a 'Real Label', but it would work if they could find a 'Real Label' to elect, are allowed 25 years to find such a person. If, at the end of that time, they have failed to find such a person, said philosophy is declared a null and void.
By our calculations, the 25 years deadline for the 'Conservative' philosophy was reached in 2005 without a single 'Real Conservative' ever being elected. As 'Conservativism' has been unable to produce a 'conservative' in any way, shape, or form , despiting being given a quarter of the century to find one, that term was deemed completely disfunct and you were legally enjoined from using it.
Through a lapse on our part, this was not noticed until 2006, and you were given your two (2) year notice in the 2006 election. This is your eight (8) month notice that, starting November 1 2008, you must cease and desist using the term 'Conservative', 'Conservativism', and all other worded based on the 'Conserve' prefix, or you will be fined $1000 for each violation.
This does not apply to 'Theoconservative' or 'neoconservative', or 'theocon' or 'neocon'. You can continue using those terms, assuming you so wish.
However, we have ruled that 'paleoconservative' is simply another way to refer to traditional 'conservative' and is thus covered under the 'conservative' ruling, and you are required to also desist from using that. This includes the term 'paleocon'.
Obama might believe in the 'status quo', but it's the mid-90's status quo, not this new one where we run around blowing people up and torturing them without charges.
Um, no, you can't do that with 'a little added output circuitry'. Multiplexing analog sound is hard. Like, so hard that no one does it. You'd have to shift the entire range of frequencies, twice. You'd have to expand the first 0-24kHz to 0-48kHz, and second 24-48 kHz to 0-48kHz too. Just doing that once is more expensive than just buying another soundcard, and, as a bonus, you don't end up with crappy 24 kHz sound.
In fact, what the hell is wrong with everyone here? Hey, dumbasses, if you want two separate sound outputs, buy another sound card. You can get cheap USB ones for 10 bucks, and it will be better quality than the rear and center/subwoofer outputs on most 5.1 soundcards, which, as has been correctly pointed out, often sound like crap. Even on the best sound cards they don't bother spending money on the subwoofer DAC.
I think you, of all people, have managed to peg it. It doesn't have anything to do with 'miscommunication' on the part of the woman or 'misunderstanding' on the part of the man.
It has to do with the fact the woman who has no idea what she wants.
Or at least doesn't have any idea until after the interpretation is made by the man. And there's a psychological trick that if you don't know what you want of two choices, and get handed one randomly, you're actually somewhat more likely to suddenly decided you wanted the other things. A 'grass is always greener' thing.
I'm glad that finally one study has noticed that men can't detect in either direction, which demonstrates that men are not crazed horndogs who are attempting to constantly ht on women they don't think are attracted to them, but rather they honestly don't know. (Although they are somewhat optimistic and willing to go for 'sex' when the odds are 50/50, because, hey, they'd often rather be right about that than right about 'friend'.)
And I'm convinced that the men who can 'detect' what women actually want have just figured out how to fix that problem by clever maneuvering. They should give classes in 'How to talk women into deciding they're attracted to you or not attracted to you'.
Incidentally, I'm not trying to trash women here. Not know what you want to do happens a lot more than people think, half the time people have no idea what they're doing and don't realize it until after, when they make up little justifications for it. The brain does not consciously decide a good deal of things you do, for both men and women. (Just right now, when thinking what to type, I found myself staring at my computer off to the side while thinking. I didn't choose to do that, my brain did that without asking 'me'.)
It's just with men, the brain has a little 'sex' notification it bounces in every 45 seconds or so if there are women in the area, so we actually do decide if want sex consciously. (Almost always 'yes', but, despite what women think, we are willing to ignore that if we think the woman doesn't want it.) Whereas women do not decide that.
Here's a tip for women who are frustrated by the fact no one understands their signals in either direction: Think about sex more. Whenever you see a guy, imagine having sex with him. Or at least any guy you think is 'cute' or 'interesting'. I'm not saying to want to have sex with him, I'm saying imagine it, and then you'll decide if you want to or not, and then your 'signals' will be a lot clearer because you'll actually know what the heck you're trying to signal.
And, yes, there are a certain class of men who don't understand 'female friends signals' at all, or who do understand but don't actually want any of those, but go along anyway thinking they can subvert them into sex.
Consider it payback for the fact that women do the exact opposite, wanting male friends that are providing all the emotional needs of boyfriends, but without intimacy, while they have boyfriends that are manifestly wrong for them and only in it for the sex. Just like men have biological need to reproduce, so they have lots of kids, women have one to 'be safe' and 'cared for', so they have a place to raise kids. And just like men need to keep their needs in check and not make sure they're fulfilling that need for sex at the expense of 'conquests', women need to make sure they're not fulfilling that need for safety at the expense of their 'male friends'.
Smoke doesn't go up. Hot air does. Since smoke and hot air are both produced by a fire, the latter usually carries the former with it; however, the amount of energy, and thus hot air, produced by a cigarette is pathetic, so the smoke will most likely simply ride the ambient currents after the first few seconds.
Correct. However, that is more than enough to get it well over the heads of people. People do not breathe air 10 feet up.
And while obviously wind could carry it down or stop it from going up, the mere existence of wind would result in even less inhalation.
If you're smelling tobacco smoke, you're breathing tobacco smoke.
You are assuming that what is being smelled is the smoke, which is somewhat circular reasoning. Smells produced by burning are not 'attached' to the smoke, as easily observed by operating a fireplace or standing near a charcoal grill, or, hell, by the fact rooms can be permeated with burned tobacco smell, wrongly called 'smoke smell'. (Are those rooms dangerously giving people cancer until they're repainted? Neat trick there.)
Sensing smells are a very strange trick we manage to pull off, and we do it by having amazingly sensitive detectors. Even if 99.9999999999% of the 'smellable' molecules go with the smoke, any tiny remaining ones will trigger 'smelling burning tobacco', just like when we cook a pie 99.9999999999% of the 'smellable' pie molecules actually remain in the pie, or we wouldn't have a fricking pie left.
That does not make it a tiny amount of smoke, and does not mean there's any risk of cancer. Scent molecules != smoke. Smoke cannot sit on the walls of a room and float off randomly, like tobacco scent molecules do.
I'd rather have people who think guns are dangerous and don't want to mess with them than people who think they aren't dangerous and are fun to play with.
Guns are dangerous. That doesn't mean we should try to keep people from having them. But it is fine if people recognize they are dangerous and thus shouldn't be messed with unless you know what you're doing.
Don't confuse people who want to take your guns away with people who have no problem with your guns but don't want the responsibility of owning their own.
And there's a whole body of (often contradictory) requirements re pool fencing.
My father surreally had to have his pool fenced in. It's about 30 feet from the lake.
In fact, one of the 'walls' of the fence is the lake, which they did allow, but they made him run the fence ends about five feet into the lake so it would be harder to wade around.
But now all the children are safe, all zero of them that walk down the quarter-mile privately-owned road, and won't drown in his pool. Of course, it's suddenly occurred to me they might drown in the lake.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum mechanics influences the behavior of people carrying geiger counters.
You know,that's a damn good point. Property owners sometimes are required to grant easements that lets someone cross their land, but that doesn't mean those people can do anything. For example, if you have easement rights across a field, that doesn't mean you can stop and have a picnic. It means you can cross, not loiter.
You can take photographs from public property all you want, but some lawyer needs to look up whether or not someone who has an easement across their property has ever successfully stopped people who are legally crossing it from taking photographs while crossing.
The US can torture anyone we let it torture, until we make it stop.
Although, FYI, it's not only torturing non-citizens non-POWs currently. It claims, right now, it's only torturing people it asserts are not citizen and not POWs. Which is not the same thing as actually only torturing people who are actually not citizens and not POWs.
The AC is correct, but more to the point, those labels actually aren't even attempting to keep you from reselling the product...the company doesn't give a damn what you do, they can't get in trouble for it. The FDA just requires that all food sold have a nutritional information on it, so the company is legally required to warn you that reselling the bags inside isn't allowed.
And, yes, you can photocopy the actual nutritional information and attach it to the package and legally sell it, although you should remember to change the number of servings and whatnot.
Or alternately you can sell it as a 'restaurant' or however that works, they don't have provide labeling on their food, they just have to have estimates of nutritional information available on demand.
Everyone here is apparently rather stupid.
If I leave your house traveling at the speed of light, and look back an hour later, I'll see your house exactly as I left it. (Pretending that time would actually pass enough for me to 'see' anything.)
So, 'relatively', anyone who also left at the same time, in any direction, at any speed, looks like they're 'relatively' an hour away! Because they're standing at my starting point motionless!
Of course, as no one can actually do anything at the speed of light, even assuming they could reach it, this concept is rather stupid.
Which is why all this discussion is rather stupid. The original poster apparently doesn't realize that when scientists talk about seeing things farther away than the age of the universe, they're actually talking about where they are now, not where they are when the light that is now reaching us left them.
I love how they think about computer security on BSG.
For those who haven't see it, on Battlestar Galatica, they're fighting an enemy they assume can near-instantly take over any computer, especially any network connected to the outside comms.
So they have plenty of computers, but none of them are connected to any others. (Although they can network them in an emergency...and the one time they did that to calculate something faster, they ended up having the computers almost taken over. Smartly, they only used non-critical computers.) They can reset and reload any of the computer in a few minutes. Their comm system appears to be some sort of analog switched and radio network, without any sort of 'modem' that would allow it to connect to any computer at all, and with hardware controls.
Because, dumbass, it's easy to have walk-in escorted access to most offices on some pretense or another. But they tend to stop you if they see you carrying things out, or even if they see you typing on their computer.
Dropping flash drives, OTOH, is easy.
So how the heck could they miss it? Possible answer: Because the filtering approach was mostly working.
They miss it because the tens of millions of felony computer accesses those people have committed haven't inconvenienced the rich and powerful yet.
Seriously. Tens of millions of felonies. They've built automated tools to commit felonies. We're just ignoring it.
Erm, you're apparently in 1998.
Spammers do not give a flying fuck if an account is actually valid or not. If it accepts mail, or has ever accepted mail at all, it is a 'real account' and they will spam it. I even have accounts that have never have accepted mail, and get hit with dozens of spam attempts a day. (Which I do now accept as a spamtrap, but whatever.)
Google is actually making it infinitely harder on themselves by accepting all mail on certain domains, as now spammers have a huge list of 'valid' accounts.
Which in theory means 'more wasted time of spammers', but in actuality spammers are not limited by time. They have near-infinite resources to throw at problems.
Ah, yes. Because Google doing a single database query at that point is much much harder than accepting the mail, doing a database query to try to deliver it, generating a response, and mailing it out.
And this is cheaper than buying another soundcard or two how?
That's even more expensive.
The reason that there are more Democrats in the media than Republicans is that the more informed someone is, the more likely they are to be Democrat.
If you look at our economy now most of the big numbers are approximately the same as when Clinton was in office, but if you look at the news there are a lot more articles about the US recession under the Bush presidency.
For example, statistically, you appear likely to be a Republican, as you are apparently unware we are, in fact, in a recession now, and people were predicting that last year as the housing prices crises started to make itself aware.
Whereas we were not in one in mid-2000. You have confused the tech bubble busting and subsequent stock market weirdness with the recession. No. The stock market behaved wildly from mid-2000 to 2003, but the recession didn't start until the end of 2000 at the earliest, and more people agree it didn't start until March 2001. A few people losing their shirt in tech stocks is not a recession.
It's not okay if you have someone from the other side counter with the truth, either. Because there are still lies being aired.
To stop 'bias', the news media needs to stop airing 'political claims', period. Do not, even, under any circumstances, report 'political claims'. Report facts.
'Bias' is a non-issue. It's a bunch of crazy Republicans claiming that any story that involves civil rights or justice or education or people dying in war or anything is somehow a 'left' story.
The actual problem with the media is they say 'Person X claimed this, and Person Y claimed this, and we're too stupid to actually figure out what's going on.' instead of saying 'Person X said something today, and Person Y lied in response. We'll be covering these shocking lies all evening.'.
There's no such thing as 'economic freedom' when you have limited liability corporations. Talking about 'freedom' for fictional entities is sheer nonsense.
To whom it may concern:
As you may be aware, under the 'Communism Rule' of politics, any philosophy that puts repeatedly people in power under its 'label', who then become wildly unpopular and/or power mad, resulting in the supporters being forced to distance themselves by claiming that said person is not a 'Real Label', but it would work if they could find a 'Real Label' to elect, are allowed 25 years to find such a person. If, at the end of that time, they have failed to find such a person, said philosophy is declared a null and void.
By our calculations, the 25 years deadline for the 'Conservative' philosophy was reached in 2005 without a single 'Real Conservative' ever being elected. As 'Conservativism' has been unable to produce a 'conservative' in any way, shape, or form , despiting being given a quarter of the century to find one, that term was deemed completely disfunct and you were legally enjoined from using it.
Through a lapse on our part, this was not noticed until 2006, and you were given your two (2) year notice in the 2006 election. This is your eight (8) month notice that, starting November 1 2008, you must cease and desist using the term 'Conservative', 'Conservativism', and all other worded based on the 'Conserve' prefix, or you will be fined $1000 for each violation.
This does not apply to 'Theoconservative' or 'neoconservative', or 'theocon' or 'neocon'. You can continue using those terms, assuming you so wish.
However, we have ruled that 'paleoconservative' is simply another way to refer to traditional 'conservative' and is thus covered under the 'conservative' ruling, and you are required to also desist from using that. This includes the term 'paleocon'.
Thank you for your time.
Obama might believe in the 'status quo', but it's the mid-90's status quo, not this new one where we run around blowing people up and torturing them without charges.
Um, no, you can't do that with 'a little added output circuitry'. Multiplexing analog sound is hard. Like, so hard that no one does it. You'd have to shift the entire range of frequencies, twice. You'd have to expand the first 0-24kHz to 0-48kHz, and second 24-48 kHz to 0-48kHz too. Just doing that once is more expensive than just buying another soundcard, and, as a bonus, you don't end up with crappy 24 kHz sound.
In fact, what the hell is wrong with everyone here? Hey, dumbasses, if you want two separate sound outputs, buy another sound card. You can get cheap USB ones for 10 bucks, and it will be better quality than the rear and center/subwoofer outputs on most 5.1 soundcards, which, as has been correctly pointed out, often sound like crap. Even on the best sound cards they don't bother spending money on the subwoofer DAC.
I think you, of all people, have managed to peg it. It doesn't have anything to do with 'miscommunication' on the part of the woman or 'misunderstanding' on the part of the man.
It has to do with the fact the woman who has no idea what she wants.
Or at least doesn't have any idea until after the interpretation is made by the man. And there's a psychological trick that if you don't know what you want of two choices, and get handed one randomly, you're actually somewhat more likely to suddenly decided you wanted the other things. A 'grass is always greener' thing.
I'm glad that finally one study has noticed that men can't detect in either direction, which demonstrates that men are not crazed horndogs who are attempting to constantly ht on women they don't think are attracted to them, but rather they honestly don't know. (Although they are somewhat optimistic and willing to go for 'sex' when the odds are 50/50, because, hey, they'd often rather be right about that than right about 'friend'.)
And I'm convinced that the men who can 'detect' what women actually want have just figured out how to fix that problem by clever maneuvering. They should give classes in 'How to talk women into deciding they're attracted to you or not attracted to you'.
Incidentally, I'm not trying to trash women here. Not know what you want to do happens a lot more than people think, half the time people have no idea what they're doing and don't realize it until after, when they make up little justifications for it. The brain does not consciously decide a good deal of things you do, for both men and women. (Just right now, when thinking what to type, I found myself staring at my computer off to the side while thinking. I didn't choose to do that, my brain did that without asking 'me'.)
It's just with men, the brain has a little 'sex' notification it bounces in every 45 seconds or so if there are women in the area, so we actually do decide if want sex consciously. (Almost always 'yes', but, despite what women think, we are willing to ignore that if we think the woman doesn't want it.) Whereas women do not decide that.
Here's a tip for women who are frustrated by the fact no one understands their signals in either direction: Think about sex more. Whenever you see a guy, imagine having sex with him. Or at least any guy you think is 'cute' or 'interesting'. I'm not saying to want to have sex with him, I'm saying imagine it, and then you'll decide if you want to or not, and then your 'signals' will be a lot clearer because you'll actually know what the heck you're trying to signal.
And, yes, there are a certain class of men who don't understand 'female friends signals' at all, or who do understand but don't actually want any of those, but go along anyway thinking they can subvert them into sex.
Consider it payback for the fact that women do the exact opposite, wanting male friends that are providing all the emotional needs of boyfriends, but without intimacy, while they have boyfriends that are manifestly wrong for them and only in it for the sex. Just like men have biological need to reproduce, so they have lots of kids, women have one to 'be safe' and 'cared for', so they have a place to raise kids. And just like men need to keep their needs in check and not make sure they're fulfilling that need for sex at the expense of 'conquests', women need to make sure they're not fulfilling that need for safety at the expense of their 'male friends'.
I figured as much, it was just funny how you said it. Oh no! The government's protecting us from violence. Well...yeah, sounds good to me.
Smoke doesn't go up. Hot air does. Since smoke and hot air are both produced by a fire, the latter usually carries the former with it; however, the amount of energy, and thus hot air, produced by a cigarette is pathetic, so the smoke will most likely simply ride the ambient currents after the first few seconds.
Correct. However, that is more than enough to get it well over the heads of people. People do not breathe air 10 feet up.
And while obviously wind could carry it down or stop it from going up, the mere existence of wind would result in even less inhalation.
If you're smelling tobacco smoke, you're breathing tobacco smoke.
You are assuming that what is being smelled is the smoke, which is somewhat circular reasoning. Smells produced by burning are not 'attached' to the smoke, as easily observed by operating a fireplace or standing near a charcoal grill, or, hell, by the fact rooms can be permeated with burned tobacco smell, wrongly called 'smoke smell'. (Are those rooms dangerously giving people cancer until they're repainted? Neat trick there.)
Sensing smells are a very strange trick we manage to pull off, and we do it by having amazingly sensitive detectors. Even if 99.9999999999% of the 'smellable' molecules go with the smoke, any tiny remaining ones will trigger 'smelling burning tobacco', just like when we cook a pie 99.9999999999% of the 'smellable' pie molecules actually remain in the pie, or we wouldn't have a fricking pie left.
That does not make it a tiny amount of smoke, and does not mean there's any risk of cancer. Scent molecules != smoke. Smoke cannot sit on the walls of a room and float off randomly, like tobacco scent molecules do.
I'd rather have people who think guns are dangerous and don't want to mess with them than people who think they aren't dangerous and are fun to play with.
Guns are dangerous. That doesn't mean we should try to keep people from having them. But it is fine if people recognize they are dangerous and thus shouldn't be messed with unless you know what you're doing.
Don't confuse people who want to take your guns away with people who have no problem with your guns but don't want the responsibility of owning their own.
I don't know about you, but I like being protected from violence.
Once, when I was juggling chainsaws, one of them slipped, fell straight through the floor, and killed an assassin sneaking in to kill me.
And there's a whole body of (often contradictory) requirements re pool fencing.
My father surreally had to have his pool fenced in. It's about 30 feet from the lake.
In fact, one of the 'walls' of the fence is the lake, which they did allow, but they made him run the fence ends about five feet into the lake so it would be harder to wade around.
But now all the children are safe, all zero of them that walk down the quarter-mile privately-owned road, and won't drown in his pool. Of course, it's suddenly occurred to me they might drown in the lake.