Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.
Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (citations at bottom), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman
Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.
Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman
Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.
Society as whole (or the legislature in question) writes the laws with an undue preference towards the female gender because of a perceived weakness compared to males in this aspect. So, its not some beat cop's fault when he (or she) enforces a mandatory arrest law.
This could be just me, but i don't think less of a male if his (female) significant other abuses him. In what way is he supposed to stop this, without subjecting himself to domestic violence claims (justified or not)?
I don't buy this. Just because something is in the middle of the spectrum doesn't make it easy to pick up. After all, 10KHz is in the middle of the human auditory spectrum, but thats easiest to hear. 4Khz has the largest frequency response, because that's the typical range of the human voice.
It's based on what you NEED to see/hear frequently, not what's in the middle. Also, human response is typically a logarithmic thing, rather than linear. That's why, IIRC, red is seen the easiest. I'm not sure if red is the best color to use to reduce eyestrain, however.
You went for the format that's out of most people's price range, that's unlikely to be in people's price range for a while, and which had less features (and thus less clear advantages over DVD) than HD DVD. In practice, I suspect you've doomed HD media to a niche, while the vast majority stick with DVD for movies they want to own, and PPV and the various download services for content they want to see in HD. You keep telling yourself that. The price jump is a minor glitch given that there is no longer a war going on and they aren't dumping them below cost. Do you think HD-DVD player prices would have stayed low if BluRay had thrown in the towel? They would have risen more. By Christmas they will be down to $200. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Why is it the same people who were convinced that HD-DVD was going to take off now suddenly think that download media is going to be the thing? Uh, $200 is a LOT to play DVDs, granted really nice DVDs, but the to vast majority of people, thats all it is. A fancy, more expensive DVD. When its down to $150 for medium quality unit, thats when people are going to start adopting HD media.
As for download media, I don't think that will be able to "take off" until off-the-shelf computers start coming with more memory as a standard feature. Storage is cheap, obscenely so, but until a basic off the shelf computer comes with more than this that's all your average user will have for memory. 2GB. In other words, not enough for more than one movie. If that. A lot of (non-computer savvy) people don't realize how much memory things like movies use. Most people don't have more than, say, a few gigs of memory, not because its too expensive, but because that's what their computer came with. They don't realize that they need more (if they want to store music,movies, etc. on their computer). I saw the same thing in a discussion about computer graphics the other day. Its not that people are choosing to use outdated equipment. They just don't know they need more. They assume their computer comes with everything they need, and they get angry when they find out it doesn't(like trying to use intergrated graphics,which are still standard issue on most pcs, to play a graphic intensive game, or when their computer doesn't have enough memory.
Hmm..I wouldn't go that far. That would put editorial control in the hands of whoever was being sourced (and database failures!). With web archiving working pretty well, I don't think notability can be rescinded through simply a page going down (or someone deciding "we would get more revenue if we closed off that free section" or what have you). I see your point about the restaurant not being notable anymore because there's not any more discussions of it, but that could be due to a number of reasons and if it was notable enough to get a review or such in the paper in the first place I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
One thing where this might come into play though is through expandability - if there's only one citation or review or what have you, the article's unlikely to be sourced and expanded in the future. In WP, you'll often see voluntary keep votes in Articles for Deletion where people will say "give it time to expand, if it doesn't get beyond this stage in X months put it up again/delete it". So I think the deeper point here is that the breadth of coverage from multiple sources and the amount of coverage from a single source are both pretty important. I don't think requiring "updates" from multiple publications over time is required to keep proving notability, but it can in an indirect way help weed out singly-sourced three-sentence articles that will never be expanded in the future. Well, that was the basic point I was trying to make, but you said it a hell of lot better than I did.
Because in the above hypothetical, its no longer notable. If, for some other reason the small restaurant became notable, like it grew and is now well known in the area for fine cuisine, and now has a zagat rating, and other reviews, etc. then, its article should stay. But if the only reason its notable is because of one article in the local newspaper (for the sake of argument, let's say its a small non-notable newspaper, i.e. not the New York Times), than after a certain period of time (maybe a year or two), its no longer notable.
I think the "discussed somewhere else and available online (for a link)" standard is a good metric for deciding what stays and what goes.
(Hypothetical) examples:
#1 Small restaurant starts up. One customer enjoys his/her meal and writes an article on Wikipedia. Under this metric (and by common sense) that article should be deleted, unless the restaraunt is in some other way notable,but for the sake of argument it's not.
#2 Small restaurant starts up. A review of this restaurant is written in the local paper. An article about the restaurant is then written on Wikipedia. Under the metric that article should stay. Perhaps later, the online version of that article is no longer available. Then, (because by that time the restaurant is presumably no longer notable) the Wikipedia article could be deleted.
Because I really like the trivial and sometimes weird articles on Wikipedia. I like the articles that probably would not make it into any other resource.
I would expect that the approved bags, like the TSA-approved luggage locks, would display a special, readily-identifiable logo. Yes, that makes sense, which is a sure sign it will never happen at an airport. And if, by some miracle it did happen, I'd expect that we'd just get some story about counterfeit logos.
I'll give you a reason why a military guy should be in a better position than you. Because his and other's lives depend on these these systems. I'm a "military guy" and I definitely think I should be in a better position than someone whose life does not depend on an F-15 dropping a 1000 pound bomb on the right position at the right time.
I'm not saying these systems are totally, completely invulnerable either by virtue of programming or being classified. They're just better off than a Windows PC connected to the internet 24/7. US planes are generally not connected to the internet. An intranet, perhaps. But its not like Capt. Smith in his B-2 carrying 32,000 pounds of bombs has a DSL connection in the cockpit.
Smart missiles and stealth bombers do NOT run windows... nobody is stupid enough put something like that in. The manufacturer of the weapon system (or of the avionics in the case of stealth bombers and other aircraft) write their own proprietary software which is also classified.
Thankfully our government isn't organized enough to even enact a ban on guns, but I've heard the argument that suppose we actually elect competent officials who do what they say they will do. Then, suppose they ban guns. If they're organized enough to push such a controversial issue through our convoluted system, who knows, maybe the executive branch could get their act "together" and actually enforce the aforementioned ban somewhat effectively. Granted its an unlikely scenario, I mean our government doing anything effectively. But that's why the 2nd Amendment is so important: Just in Case...
Face it, any OS that widely-used (read: "popular") enough is going to be subjected to bug exploitation. Even Linux has bugs http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,66022,00.ht ml although, _WAY_ less than M$. In an open source OS the bugs get fixed, IMO, faster and more reliably than your weekly M$ patch. The point is, ITS GOING TO HAPPEN!
Frankly, I think the average consumer is intimidated by a perceived need for serious technical know-how to be able use just about anything other than MS (with the exception of Mac). Others probably aren't even aware of anything other than Microsoft and Mac.
"Narrowing Discrimination Down to a Science"
on
Life with a Lethal Gene
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Does anyone else see the phenomal potential for misuse of technologies like this? Its not just insurance companies. What about college admissions tests? Driver licensing? Job applications?
Maybe I've just seen Gattaca one too many times...
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.
Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (citations at bottom), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman
Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.
Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman
Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.
Society as whole (or the legislature in question) writes the laws with an undue preference towards the female gender because of a perceived weakness compared to males in this aspect. So, its not some beat cop's fault when he (or she) enforces a mandatory arrest law.
This could be just me, but i don't think less of a male if his (female) significant other abuses him. In what way is he supposed to stop this, without subjecting himself to domestic violence claims (justified or not)?
Unfortunately, the US doesn't get that choice.
You're suggesting that America deliberately act against its own interest. Why should America act contrary to its interests?
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/05/navy_myanmar_050608m/ The 31st MEU is fairly close.
Sorry, I guess I had a massive, unexplainable brain fart. So you and Albanach are completely right. *note to self: check facts before posting
As for download media, I don't think that will be able to "take off" until off-the-shelf computers start coming with more memory as a standard feature. Storage is cheap, obscenely so, but until a basic off the shelf computer comes with more than this that's all your average user will have for memory. 2GB. In other words, not enough for more than one movie. If that. A lot of (non-computer savvy) people don't realize how much memory things like movies use. Most people don't have more than, say, a few gigs of memory, not because its too expensive, but because that's what their computer came with. They don't realize that they need more (if they want to store music,movies, etc. on their computer). I saw the same thing in a discussion about computer graphics the other day. Its not that people are choosing to use outdated equipment. They just don't know they need more. They assume their computer comes with everything they need, and they get angry when they find out it doesn't(like trying to use intergrated graphics,which are still standard issue on most pcs, to play a graphic intensive game, or when their computer doesn't have enough memory.
One thing where this might come into play though is through expandability - if there's only one citation or review or what have you, the article's unlikely to be sourced and expanded in the future. In WP, you'll often see voluntary keep votes in Articles for Deletion where people will say "give it time to expand, if it doesn't get beyond this stage in X months put it up again/delete it". So I think the deeper point here is that the breadth of coverage from multiple sources and the amount of coverage from a single source are both pretty important. I don't think requiring "updates" from multiple publications over time is required to keep proving notability, but it can in an indirect way help weed out singly-sourced three-sentence articles that will never be expanded in the future. Well, that was the basic point I was trying to make, but you said it a hell of lot better than I did.
Because in the above hypothetical, its no longer notable. If, for some other reason the small restaurant became notable, like it grew and is now well known in the area for fine cuisine, and now has a zagat rating, and other reviews, etc. then, its article should stay. But if the only reason its notable is because of one article in the local newspaper (for the sake of argument, let's say its a small non-notable newspaper, i.e. not the New York Times), than after a certain period of time (maybe a year or two), its no longer notable.
I think the "discussed somewhere else and available online (for a link)" standard is a good metric for deciding what stays and what goes. (Hypothetical) examples: #1 Small restaurant starts up. One customer enjoys his/her meal and writes an article on Wikipedia. Under this metric (and by common sense) that article should be deleted, unless the restaraunt is in some other way notable,but for the sake of argument it's not. #2 Small restaurant starts up. A review of this restaurant is written in the local paper. An article about the restaurant is then written on Wikipedia. Under the metric that article should stay. Perhaps later, the online version of that article is no longer available. Then, (because by that time the restaurant is presumably no longer notable) the Wikipedia article could be deleted.
Because I really like the trivial and sometimes weird articles on Wikipedia. I like the articles that probably would not make it into any other resource.
The low success rate could be due to differences between the Cyrillic and English alphabets.
I'll give you a reason why a military guy should be in a better position than you. Because his and other's lives depend on these these systems. I'm a "military guy" and I definitely think I should be in a better position than someone whose life does not depend on an F-15 dropping a 1000 pound bomb on the right position at the right time. I'm not saying these systems are totally, completely invulnerable either by virtue of programming or being classified. They're just better off than a Windows PC connected to the internet 24/7. US planes are generally not connected to the internet. An intranet, perhaps. But its not like Capt. Smith in his B-2 carrying 32,000 pounds of bombs has a DSL connection in the cockpit.
Smart missiles and stealth bombers do NOT run windows... nobody is stupid enough put something like that in. The manufacturer of the weapon system (or of the avionics in the case of stealth bombers and other aircraft) write their own proprietary software which is also classified.
and unfortunately for those too lazy to actively participate or or witness the revolution, it will not televised...
Thankfully our government isn't organized enough to even enact a ban on guns, but I've heard the argument that suppose we actually elect competent officials who do what they say they will do. Then, suppose they ban guns. If they're organized enough to push such a controversial issue through our convoluted system, who knows, maybe the executive branch could get their act "together" and actually enforce the aforementioned ban somewhat effectively. Granted its an unlikely scenario, I mean our government doing anything effectively. But that's why the 2nd Amendment is so important: Just in Case...
Face it, any OS that widely-used (read: "popular") enough is going to be subjected to bug exploitation. Even Linux has bugs http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,66022,00.ht ml although, _WAY_ less than M$. In an open source OS the bugs get fixed, IMO, faster and more reliably than your weekly M$ patch. The point is, ITS GOING TO HAPPEN!
Frankly, I think the average consumer is intimidated by a perceived need for serious technical know-how to be able use just about anything other than MS (with the exception of Mac). Others probably aren't even aware of anything other than Microsoft and Mac.
Does anyone else see the phenomal potential for misuse of technologies like this? Its not just insurance companies. What about college admissions tests? Driver licensing? Job applications? Maybe I've just seen Gattaca one too many times...