If that's the case, then how on earth is the ad applicable (even tangentially or through parody) to the capabilities of the phone?
Even that nifty Nissan commercial that showed the Frontier snowboarding down a mountain, racing an avalanche, doing flippy tricky jumpy moves, used AN ACTUAL FRONTIER for the bits where it could; they didn't 'shop in a Frontier over a real-life snowboarder (and leave his feet in the shot, to... err... boot). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8Gl2rpTIU
You'll also note the disclaimer at the very beginning of the commercial, informing us it was a parody. This isn't just a cover-your-ass thing, either; it sets the audience up to know this is about to get ridiculous, and to prepare the suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the commercial was to say "this truck is FUN, and actually wants to ride the white wave (not cocaine, kids) with you."
None of that went into Nokia's commercial. It wasn't designed to put a product in the best light, or as a parody or joke to make an commercial memorable. It was designed to make us think this was the actual capability of the device, and it simply is not. What they should have done is come up with a real-world scenario where the tech would shine, even if it did require optimal conditions (e.g. Siri's commercials, which were at least possible). This error was on the advertising agency, not Nokia (unless they did it all in-house). A classic case of someone inventing a commercial idea, and jamming a product into it, instead of the other way around.
A big part of making a quality game is consistency, and it's plain easier to be consistent when you know exactly what hardware will be used. Having your lowest common denominator be basically identical to the highest end hardware your game will use gives you the opportunity to really push the limit of that hardware.
Maybe the topic of discussion should be re-stated as "consistent high quality, across the board, is generally easier to achieve with a console, while the same development for PC hardware requires setting the 'minimum acceptable quality' bar lower." Of course, this doesn't mean higher quality isn't possible on a PC, just that it's easier to be broadly consistent on a console.
Most console=>pc ports were done with the minimal amount of work, that means barely tolerable controlls and almost no optimization. So you can't get more redundand than that statement.
This issue stems from the "minimal amount of work" part, not the differences in the hardware. Given the proper amount of attention, either platform is adequate, but optimizing for a console is easier. It works the other way, too; the latest release of Dark Souls on PC is pretty crappy compared to the PS3 version (I have both). It looks beautiful, but the controls just don't work form me.
The other thing is different genres are just going to work better on a PC (RTS, MMORPG, 4X, etc) due to more appropriate (or just plain more) control possibilities. It's not black and white, since - going out on a limb here - most people would prefer to play a game with a little less graphical perfection that includes the ability to actually play it.
Just cuz something looks better or has a better frame-rate doesn't mean it plays better, and the industry is littered with ports that fail; sometimes due to odd development choices, sometimes due to unrealistic ports, and, yes, sometimes due to hardware differences. It all comes down to developing for a discrete type of hardware, and not taking the effort to re-develop when releasing the software for another type of hardware.
You know, this is probably true, and well said, but it's always good to include the *why* of it for perspective. Otherwise people tend miss the point, as the guy you responded to did.
Consoles are (ostensibly) dedicated to gaming, and have identical specs, across the board. This just has to be easier to optimize for than trying to come up with a bare-bones, a mid-range, and a high-end graphic settings buffet for any PC that gets show-horned into running your game.
That said, we know for certain it's possible to tweak a PC game and have more realism, better performance, and more customization. You just have to have the higher specs and a bit of know-how, as you say.
As always, I much prefer having the choice of what my hardware consists of, though I have a PS3 and a Wii too. Different items used for similar but discrete purposes, like so many things in life.
Egos are like naughty bits; keep them both in your pants until it's time to use them.
Seriously; it's fine to be confident; but it's not fine to be arrogant. Ego can lead to either confidence or arrogance, but confidence is far more appealing to an employer.
It appears that many of the studies have shown that heavy patents don't necessarily increase innovation, but rather direct the types of innovations that are made within an industry (perhaps: innovate for a long term lock-in, not for shorter term or wide-spread improvements).
/shrug I think patents have their place, but I can't fathom a reason why a company would need more than a decade of locked-in profits after a product is released to market. I can maybe see the case for the very, very expensive and time consuming process of drug manufacturing, but in those types of special cases, shouldn't the patent be proportionate to the time invested, and not a broad "You just won the cancer game for the next 63 years!" certificate?
Gotcha. So the "test" is really more of a de facto guideline to prevent egregious and (frankly) silly damages from lobbed at a defendant by a jury. Shouldn't part of jury selection/training be to inform them of this guideline prior to them choosing the level of damages awarded in the first place?
It's getting to the point where NOTHING gets done by ANYBODY. You know who's unwilling to debate and only to destroy? Every-fucking-one in congress. Lately, the republicans have been spearheading the initiative, but I have no doubt that if (and it's a BIG if) Romney's elected, the Dem's will do the same damn thing.
All these people saying "but your party does it tooooo!11!!1" are either blind or stupid; when you get kicked in the balls, and kick the guy who kicked you in the balls on the way down, all that's left is a writhing mess of retards. --- Congress.
Well, what is your solution, then? Are you really suggesting that a rape accusation shouldn't be taken at face value unless there is some sort of physical evidence (maybe bruises and semen) present at the time of reporting? Or would you claim that 10% of these reporters bruised themselves and borrowed some semen to get the job done?
The solution to the problem you pose is to impose SEVERE sanctions on those who engage in false accusations for profit or personal gain (right now the penalty similar to that of a DUI, at least in Utah; it could definitely be more severe). It is a poor and ineffective solution to discount reports of rape as false, or "has X% chance of being false". Even if false reports were 99.9% of the total, that 0.1% of suspects need to be brought to justice so it doesn't happen again.
If we were talking about murder, would you have the same stance? Sure, there are people who fake their own deaths, but those who were really murdered should get justice, and the outlying data points shouldn't disrupt that. As for the guys that have been falsely accused (actually, I was accused of statutory when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 17; not quite the same, but still) it sucks ass. I have a friend who had 3 years probation and a sex crime record for a statutory case that he was actually convicted of (he was 19 and his girlfriend had just turned 17). The stigma really does suck, bad, and even sanctions on the accuser doesn't relieve the feeling of being accused of attacking someone when you didn't.
But also, as a guy who's cousin was raped repeatedly and violently on her way home from night classes, I get that side of it, too, and the one is FAR more devastating on a life than the other (your comparison to "life-rape" is pretty ridiculous; they're not even close).
Oh, I agree completely, and this is not limited to rape. Child abuse, sexual assault, violent assault, theft, vandalism, and just about any other crime can be accused. I suppose one of the differences with rape and child abuse are the emotional charge being the crime, making even a wild allegation, with no evidence whatsoever, a very damaging event.
Rape and child abuse (for I see the two as similarly egregious acts) often go unreported due to the stigma of being a victim of these crimes, so it works both ways. These victims should not be viewed with skepticism out of the gate, any more than a suspect should be viewed guilty without evidence. Dispassionate investigation of a report is the only real way to treat these cases.
Maybe what needs to happen is making a rape investigation more circumspect on both sides.
All that said; just because some "victims" are practiced extortionists doesn't mean rape charges aren't a very serious situation that needs to be investigated sincerely. As someone else on the forum has already said, the reason this type of extortion works in the first place is that rape is so prevalent crime in our society. If you are accused of rape by someone you've never even met, you're the victim of a scam, and need to defend yourself accordingly. This situation is by far not the norm in rape cases, though.
A) I've been molested. So there's that. B) I was stating that CAIMLAS comment was tautologically incorrect. He asked "Is male contempt for women so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims?" He then went on to dismiss rape claims. pdabbadabba then pointed this error out, and I agreed.
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
That's EXACTLY how it works. Someone comes in and takes your TV from your house. The TV-taker says that YOU said it's ok that he took it. You say it's NOT ok that he took it. Since it was originally your TV, you are (for lack of a better term) the "gatekeeper" of said TV, and the new possessor of the TV should be investigated for theft. There's a reasonable suspicion that it was taken.
Sure, there are people out there who will say "Sure! Take my TV, and have fun rooting around inside it!!!" only to call the police and blame you for theft. These people are few and far between.
As for the Wikipedia page; read it very closely. The Victoria study comes up with about 2.1% false claims to rape. Kanin's report has been totally discredited as a random sample study, and while it would be pretty damning, if it was a solid "what percent of rapes were false accusations", read the experiment. They found 45 *known* false cases to study, of 109 total rapes, in a specific urban area, specifically to determine what makes a person commit a false accusation; nothing about that selection is a "random sample". After you read the experiment, it was pretty clear the study was to determine why false rape accusations occur (and it did an admirable job at that). The other studies, of which only the numbers are provided, all added up, amount to just under 13% of all rape accusations as being false. Even if 20% of rape charges are false, they all need to be investigated, just like any other accusatory violent crime should be.
A wiki for a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusations Rape fits in pretty closely to child abuse and stalking, regarding false accusations, and ALL possible accusations should be investigated. I'm sorry, fellas, but beware the ink you dip your pen in. If it's crazy ink, you may get nicked, especially since it's a he said/she said situation. If you're gonna bang a chick, make sure she's not part of the ~10% who'll use it against you, and by the same token, no really does mean no. Follow those tidbits, and don't bang things younger than 18, and you'll never have to deal with this. That's just the way this cookie crumbles; very much like taking a "free" TV from the crazy cat lady when offered.
I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
So... I hate to be Captain Obvious here, and all, but... why are these people you know sleeping with women they know for sure won't "play the rape card", so to speak? Slapping naughties seems like a situation where some discretion is wise.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too? I'm not all about screwing some poor chap's life up for the false accusation of rape, but on the rape spectrum, you everything from violent forcible sexual abuse, date rape, taking advantage while drunk, to heavy peer pressure. There are appropriate sanctions for each.
Yes, some women* are out there to simply fuck your life over, or were willing partners at night, but come next morning it's all different. What this means is you should be more discriminating over who's hangy bits you go exploring in the wee hours of the morning. After all, would you rather be accused of rape, or told you have HIV the next morning? The same behavior leads to both. Besides, every study I've ever read says this is a pretty low percentage of reported sexual assaults - it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
I'd even go so far as to say this just doesn't happen unless there's something for the accuser to gain, making it a fraud case, not a rape case. Maybe if all your friends are Kobe Bryant or Clarence Thomas or Julian Assange, there's some merit, but if your friends are Billy from high school who still drives his Pinto, it seems unlikely that a predatory woman would be wasting her time on him. Sorry Billy; "no" does NOT mean "just the tip", even when you DO offer 4 wine coolers.
*and men, too; in fact, you'd be surprised how often a straight man cries wolf after an experimental evening of sleeping with a gay man.
The Ethernet connection was Comcast's "100 Mbps" connection, which was running at 85 Mbps (due to the cap being hit as DHCP handed out the IP address). The other 9 connections were just there to make it "look fancy".
It's not about "more" or "less" important. It's about how a child needs their parents in their lives. The single AC and you and your wife can easily come up with something just as important as that, and you have every right to say the same thing we parents do: "I won't work more than 8 hours."
Those of us with kids are simply saying they are *our* reason for refusing to be abused.
Well, there's one button you REALLY go after (sometimes my nose gets sore, and the bottom of my tongue gets rubbed a little raw) but the other button is pretty fun to track down, too.
Also a little interesting: Typically people want to match colors across color spaces; as in "I want my print to look like my monitor!!!".
This case is the opposite; the goal is to punch the saturation, contrast, and luminescence to that of a randomly chosen Earth standard. We want to take the equivalent of a printed image (small color gamut) and see what it looked like on a monitor (large color gamut) prior to printing.
In general sweeping terms, this is pretty easy to do, provided an educated guess is good enough, but from a truly precise point of view, it's much harder, since a lot of extrapolation is going on. The data wasn't there when the picture was taken, so we're sort of fabricating it, based on what we know about other processes.
Imagine taking a picture of a basketball waaaay up north during the dark season of the year. Then imagine trying to determine what that basketball would look like at noon on the equator. You can do it, especially if you have a bunch of pictures between 10:00 pm, 6:00 am, and 4:00 pm (more datapoints allows you to scale luminescence, saturation, and color balance more accurately) but not as well as if you just took the picture of the basketball at noon on the equator.
Since we can't very well ship Mars to our equator, we extrapolate the best we can.
Need to be careful here; what you say happens, definitely, but it's not the eyes that do it. It's one of those "zomg my brain adjusted the data to a known pattern" type things.
Kind of like a sommelier's nose, you can train yourself to see the differences in white points without having to place swatches next to each other, and it's very useful when switching through several temperatures of light sources for simulation purposes. What sucks is once you do, you can't turn it off.;)
A VERY common thing, since blue is mentioned a little further up; blue can EASILY look purple in very slightly different light. That's partly the brain adjusting for white point; but if take, say, sonic the hedgehog, who should look like a known blue, and manipulate light to make him purple, the brain tries to force the purple to blue, but fails at it. It's one of those situations that make people cringe; like chalkboard scratching for ears.
Even on earth we have this issue (I've made a fairly healthy living navigating through color space to color space and light source to light source over the years). People seem to forget that our own sunlight can vary during the day, geographical location, cloudy days, etc, and indoor lighting is the beast with a billion backs. Even your own eyes can betray you, needing a moment to adjust, and often one eye sees color slightly differently from the other.
Color scientists have had an absolute color and light source standard to measure against (CIE LAB) or 40+ years; Mars (or anywhere in the universe that receives light in the visible spectrum) fits just dandy into this model for color transformations, it's just a bit further away than usual. The less light there is to measure, the smaller the total color gamut will be, but you can extrapolate pretty well, if you don't mind some +/- errors along the way.
Typically, a true simulation would need several hundred color swatches for analysis, plus an iterative scanning approach to nail down the color gamut points that are furthest away (say, blues could be further off than reds, so require more attention for a transform). Still, for a general "this is approximately how it'd look on Earth" a 4 swatch RGBY spectrum is close enough.
It's something like the difference of having a precision of tenths to a precision of hundred-thousandths, when all you're doing is counting apples. You may be plus or minus a tenth of an apple, but so what?
The only thing that's a little surprising is that they didn't include a calibrated black strip, but I suppose they didn't really need to account for the variation between deep shadow areas or very dark objects in this case.
Content-aware clipping is a great feature. Wand a plant, hit delete, choose content-aware, hit enter, gogo Mars! Easier than removing zits from Romney.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, then how on earth is the ad applicable (even tangentially or through parody) to the capabilities of the phone?
Even that nifty Nissan commercial that showed the Frontier snowboarding down a mountain, racing an avalanche, doing flippy tricky jumpy moves, used AN ACTUAL FRONTIER for the bits where it could; they didn't 'shop in a Frontier over a real-life snowboarder (and leave his feet in the shot, to... err... boot). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8Gl2rpTIU
You'll also note the disclaimer at the very beginning of the commercial, informing us it was a parody. This isn't just a cover-your-ass thing, either; it sets the audience up to know this is about to get ridiculous, and to prepare the suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the commercial was to say "this truck is FUN, and actually wants to ride the white wave (not cocaine, kids) with you."
None of that went into Nokia's commercial. It wasn't designed to put a product in the best light, or as a parody or joke to make an commercial memorable. It was designed to make us think this was the actual capability of the device, and it simply is not. What they should have done is come up with a real-world scenario where the tech would shine, even if it did require optimal conditions (e.g. Siri's commercials, which were at least possible). This error was on the advertising agency, not Nokia (unless they did it all in-house). A classic case of someone inventing a commercial idea, and jamming a product into it, instead of the other way around.
A big part of making a quality game is consistency, and it's plain easier to be consistent when you know exactly what hardware will be used. Having your lowest common denominator be basically identical to the highest end hardware your game will use gives you the opportunity to really push the limit of that hardware.
Maybe the topic of discussion should be re-stated as "consistent high quality, across the board, is generally easier to achieve with a console, while the same development for PC hardware requires setting the 'minimum acceptable quality' bar lower." Of course, this doesn't mean higher quality isn't possible on a PC, just that it's easier to be broadly consistent on a console.
Most console=>pc ports were done with the minimal amount of work, that means barely tolerable controlls and almost no optimization. So you can't get more redundand than that statement.
This issue stems from the "minimal amount of work" part, not the differences in the hardware. Given the proper amount of attention, either platform is adequate, but optimizing for a console is easier. It works the other way, too; the latest release of Dark Souls on PC is pretty crappy compared to the PS3 version (I have both). It looks beautiful, but the controls just don't work form me.
The other thing is different genres are just going to work better on a PC (RTS, MMORPG, 4X, etc) due to more appropriate (or just plain more) control possibilities. It's not black and white, since - going out on a limb here - most people would prefer to play a game with a little less graphical perfection that includes the ability to actually play it.
Just cuz something looks better or has a better frame-rate doesn't mean it plays better, and the industry is littered with ports that fail; sometimes due to odd development choices, sometimes due to unrealistic ports, and, yes, sometimes due to hardware differences. It all comes down to developing for a discrete type of hardware, and not taking the effort to re-develop when releasing the software for another type of hardware.
You know, this is probably true, and well said, but it's always good to include the *why* of it for perspective. Otherwise people tend miss the point, as the guy you responded to did.
Consoles are (ostensibly) dedicated to gaming, and have identical specs, across the board. This just has to be easier to optimize for than trying to come up with a bare-bones, a mid-range, and a high-end graphic settings buffet for any PC that gets show-horned into running your game.
That said, we know for certain it's possible to tweak a PC game and have more realism, better performance, and more customization. You just have to have the higher specs and a bit of know-how, as you say.
As always, I much prefer having the choice of what my hardware consists of, though I have a PS3 and a Wii too. Different items used for similar but discrete purposes, like so many things in life.
Egos are like naughty bits; keep them both in your pants until it's time to use them.
Seriously; it's fine to be confident; but it's not fine to be arrogant. Ego can lead to either confidence or arrogance, but confidence is far more appealing to an employer.
Challenge accepted.
/shrug I think patents have their place, but I can't fathom a reason why a company would need more than a decade of locked-in profits after a product is released to market. I can maybe see the case for the very, very expensive and time consuming process of drug manufacturing, but in those types of special cases, shouldn't the patent be proportionate to the time invested, and not a broad "You just won the cancer game for the next 63 years!" certificate?
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?p=9
http://archive.mises.org/7880/patents-and-innovation/
http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/
http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/do-patents-increase-innovation/
I didn't really even cherry pick; I just did a Google search for "innovation in countries without patent laws" and a whole slew of studies came up.
It appears that many of the studies have shown that heavy patents don't necessarily increase innovation, but rather direct the types of innovations that are made within an industry (perhaps: innovate for a long term lock-in, not for shorter term or wide-spread improvements).
Gotcha. So the "test" is really more of a de facto guideline to prevent egregious and (frankly) silly damages from lobbed at a defendant by a jury. Shouldn't part of jury selection/training be to inform them of this guideline prior to them choosing the level of damages awarded in the first place?
unwilling to debate and only to destroy.
Bwahaha! Are you for real?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
It's getting to the point where NOTHING gets done by ANYBODY. You know who's unwilling to debate and only to destroy? Every-fucking-one in congress. Lately, the republicans have been spearheading the initiative, but I have no doubt that if (and it's a BIG if) Romney's elected, the Dem's will do the same damn thing.
All these people saying "but your party does it tooooo!11!!1" are either blind or stupid; when you get kicked in the balls, and kick the guy who kicked you in the balls on the way down, all that's left is a writhing mess of retards. --- Congress.
Have to undo all my mod points to ask this, but it's worth knowing. What is the State Farm/Gore test, and how is it conducted?
Googling it just gives me a list of State Farm agents!
And then they'll count you and your cracked (purchased) copy as a pirated copy.
"114% of all our games are pirated!"
-clueless CEO
Well, what is your solution, then? Are you really suggesting that a rape accusation shouldn't be taken at face value unless there is some sort of physical evidence (maybe bruises and semen) present at the time of reporting? Or would you claim that 10% of these reporters bruised themselves and borrowed some semen to get the job done?
The solution to the problem you pose is to impose SEVERE sanctions on those who engage in false accusations for profit or personal gain (right now the penalty similar to that of a DUI, at least in Utah; it could definitely be more severe). It is a poor and ineffective solution to discount reports of rape as false, or "has X% chance of being false". Even if false reports were 99.9% of the total, that 0.1% of suspects need to be brought to justice so it doesn't happen again.
If we were talking about murder, would you have the same stance? Sure, there are people who fake their own deaths, but those who were really murdered should get justice, and the outlying data points shouldn't disrupt that. As for the guys that have been falsely accused (actually, I was accused of statutory when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 17; not quite the same, but still) it sucks ass. I have a friend who had 3 years probation and a sex crime record for a statutory case that he was actually convicted of (he was 19 and his girlfriend had just turned 17). The stigma really does suck, bad, and even sanctions on the accuser doesn't relieve the feeling of being accused of attacking someone when you didn't.
But also, as a guy who's cousin was raped repeatedly and violently on her way home from night classes, I get that side of it, too, and the one is FAR more devastating on a life than the other (your comparison to "life-rape" is pretty ridiculous; they're not even close).
On that note, if we still disagree, so be it.
Oh, I agree completely, and this is not limited to rape. Child abuse, sexual assault, violent assault, theft, vandalism, and just about any other crime can be accused. I suppose one of the differences with rape and child abuse are the emotional charge being the crime, making even a wild allegation, with no evidence whatsoever, a very damaging event.
Rape and child abuse (for I see the two as similarly egregious acts) often go unreported due to the stigma of being a victim of these crimes, so it works both ways. These victims should not be viewed with skepticism out of the gate, any more than a suspect should be viewed guilty without evidence. Dispassionate investigation of a report is the only real way to treat these cases.
Maybe what needs to happen is making a rape investigation more circumspect on both sides.
All that said; just because some "victims" are practiced extortionists doesn't mean rape charges aren't a very serious situation that needs to be investigated sincerely. As someone else on the forum has already said, the reason this type of extortion works in the first place is that rape is so prevalent crime in our society. If you are accused of rape by someone you've never even met, you're the victim of a scam, and need to defend yourself accordingly. This situation is by far not the norm in rape cases, though.
A) I've been molested. So there's that. B) I was stating that CAIMLAS comment was tautologically incorrect. He asked "Is male contempt for women so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims?" He then went on to dismiss rape claims. pdabbadabba then pointed this error out, and I agreed.
Now, WTF are you ranting about again?
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
That's EXACTLY how it works. Someone comes in and takes your TV from your house. The TV-taker says that YOU said it's ok that he took it. You say it's NOT ok that he took it. Since it was originally your TV, you are (for lack of a better term) the "gatekeeper" of said TV, and the new possessor of the TV should be investigated for theft. There's a reasonable suspicion that it was taken.
Sure, there are people out there who will say "Sure! Take my TV, and have fun rooting around inside it!!!" only to call the police and blame you for theft. These people are few and far between. As for the Wikipedia page; read it very closely. The Victoria study comes up with about 2.1% false claims to rape. Kanin's report has been totally discredited as a random sample study, and while it would be pretty damning, if it was a solid "what percent of rapes were false accusations", read the experiment. They found 45 *known* false cases to study, of 109 total rapes, in a specific urban area, specifically to determine what makes a person commit a false accusation; nothing about that selection is a "random sample". After you read the experiment, it was pretty clear the study was to determine why false rape accusations occur (and it did an admirable job at that). The other studies, of which only the numbers are provided, all added up, amount to just under 13% of all rape accusations as being false. Even if 20% of rape charges are false, they all need to be investigated, just like any other accusatory violent crime should be.
A wiki for a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusations Rape fits in pretty closely to child abuse and stalking, regarding false accusations, and ALL possible accusations should be investigated. I'm sorry, fellas, but beware the ink you dip your pen in. If it's crazy ink, you may get nicked, especially since it's a he said/she said situation. If you're gonna bang a chick, make sure she's not part of the ~10% who'll use it against you, and by the same token, no really does mean no. Follow those tidbits, and don't bang things younger than 18, and you'll never have to deal with this. That's just the way this cookie crumbles; very much like taking a "free" TV from the crazy cat lady when offered.
Good catch. GP post was a very cleverly disguised "That can't be true, for if it was true, I'd believe it was true." argument.
I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
So... I hate to be Captain Obvious here, and all, but... why are these people you know sleeping with women they know for sure won't "play the rape card", so to speak? Slapping naughties seems like a situation where some discretion is wise.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too? I'm not all about screwing some poor chap's life up for the false accusation of rape, but on the rape spectrum, you everything from violent forcible sexual abuse, date rape, taking advantage while drunk, to heavy peer pressure. There are appropriate sanctions for each.
Yes, some women* are out there to simply fuck your life over, or were willing partners at night, but come next morning it's all different. What this means is you should be more discriminating over who's hangy bits you go exploring in the wee hours of the morning. After all, would you rather be accused of rape, or told you have HIV the next morning? The same behavior leads to both. Besides, every study I've ever read says this is a pretty low percentage of reported sexual assaults - it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
I'd even go so far as to say this just doesn't happen unless there's something for the accuser to gain, making it a fraud case, not a rape case. Maybe if all your friends are Kobe Bryant or Clarence Thomas or Julian Assange, there's some merit, but if your friends are Billy from high school who still drives his Pinto, it seems unlikely that a predatory woman would be wasting her time on him. Sorry Billy; "no" does NOT mean "just the tip", even when you DO offer 4 wine coolers.
*and men, too; in fact, you'd be surprised how often a straight man cries wolf after an experimental evening of sleeping with a gay man.
The Ethernet connection was Comcast's "100 Mbps" connection, which was running at 85 Mbps (due to the cap being hit as DHCP handed out the IP address). The other 9 connections were just there to make it "look fancy".
Sigh where are my mod points today?
It's not about "more" or "less" important. It's about how a child needs their parents in their lives. The single AC and you and your wife can easily come up with something just as important as that, and you have every right to say the same thing we parents do: "I won't work more than 8 hours."
Those of us with kids are simply saying they are *our* reason for refusing to be abused.
Well, there's one button you REALLY go after (sometimes my nose gets sore, and the bottom of my tongue gets rubbed a little raw) but the other button is pretty fun to track down, too.
Hmm.
A beast with a lightly curved back, rounded corners, placement of a single [easy to touch] button, and [desirable] placement of ports? Sexy, indeed.
Also a little interesting: Typically people want to match colors across color spaces; as in "I want my print to look like my monitor!!!".
This case is the opposite; the goal is to punch the saturation, contrast, and luminescence to that of a randomly chosen Earth standard. We want to take the equivalent of a printed image (small color gamut) and see what it looked like on a monitor (large color gamut) prior to printing.
In general sweeping terms, this is pretty easy to do, provided an educated guess is good enough, but from a truly precise point of view, it's much harder, since a lot of extrapolation is going on. The data wasn't there when the picture was taken, so we're sort of fabricating it, based on what we know about other processes.
Imagine taking a picture of a basketball waaaay up north during the dark season of the year. Then imagine trying to determine what that basketball would look like at noon on the equator. You can do it, especially if you have a bunch of pictures between 10:00 pm, 6:00 am, and 4:00 pm (more datapoints allows you to scale luminescence, saturation, and color balance more accurately) but not as well as if you just took the picture of the basketball at noon on the equator.
Since we can't very well ship Mars to our equator, we extrapolate the best we can.
Need to be careful here; what you say happens, definitely, but it's not the eyes that do it. It's one of those "zomg my brain adjusted the data to a known pattern" type things.
;)
Kind of like a sommelier's nose, you can train yourself to see the differences in white points without having to place swatches next to each other, and it's very useful when switching through several temperatures of light sources for simulation purposes. What sucks is once you do, you can't turn it off.
A VERY common thing, since blue is mentioned a little further up; blue can EASILY look purple in very slightly different light. That's partly the brain adjusting for white point; but if take, say, sonic the hedgehog, who should look like a known blue, and manipulate light to make him purple, the brain tries to force the purple to blue, but fails at it. It's one of those situations that make people cringe; like chalkboard scratching for ears.
Even on earth we have this issue (I've made a fairly healthy living navigating through color space to color space and light source to light source over the years). People seem to forget that our own sunlight can vary during the day, geographical location, cloudy days, etc, and indoor lighting is the beast with a billion backs. Even your own eyes can betray you, needing a moment to adjust, and often one eye sees color slightly differently from the other.
Color scientists have had an absolute color and light source standard to measure against (CIE LAB) or 40+ years; Mars (or anywhere in the universe that receives light in the visible spectrum) fits just dandy into this model for color transformations, it's just a bit further away than usual. The less light there is to measure, the smaller the total color gamut will be, but you can extrapolate pretty well, if you don't mind some +/- errors along the way.
Typically, a true simulation would need several hundred color swatches for analysis, plus an iterative scanning approach to nail down the color gamut points that are furthest away (say, blues could be further off than reds, so require more attention for a transform). Still, for a general "this is approximately how it'd look on Earth" a 4 swatch RGBY spectrum is close enough.
It's something like the difference of having a precision of tenths to a precision of hundred-thousandths, when all you're doing is counting apples. You may be plus or minus a tenth of an apple, but so what?
The only thing that's a little surprising is that they didn't include a calibrated black strip, but I suppose they didn't really need to account for the variation between deep shadow areas or very dark objects in this case.
Content-aware clipping is a great feature. Wand a plant, hit delete, choose content-aware, hit enter, gogo Mars! Easier than removing zits from Romney.