This made me laugh. From TFA:
"
IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses and can support approximately 4.3 billion individually addressed devices on the Internet. IPv6, on the other hand, uses 128-bit addresses and can support so many devices that only a mathematical expression -- 2 to the 128th power -- can quantify its size.
"
I guess 340 undecillion is a mathematical expression.
Well, the cops probably are not sending two swabs (one with a sample, one without) to the lab every time they take samples. So, the lab only has the one item to test.
But this new format makes two copies of everything, it only packages it in one file! It's the same thing as picking a mp3 and "attaching" a flac file at the end. The space occupied by the too is the same, but in only one file. If you had the two, at least you could save space in your portable players.
Because it's needed. AC said it, but I'll reword. Basically, the mp3 is used as part of the lossless compression format by encoding the difference between the mp3 and the original stream as a second stream. The original is obtained by taking the mp3 and applying the corrections noted in the second stream. Besides, it makes the file compatible with any mp3 player (a design goal).
All in all, yes, it's useless, and a stupid idea.
This is cool because it is a new, good lossless format that still is backward compatible with all audio players that support mp3s, which removes a major roadblock towards adoption that other formats like ogg have. It does have the problem of size though, but space is ever cheaper, and the idea is that the benefits may outweigh the cost.
rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will
And if the attempt is not successful, it is only attempted rape.
That said, an adult trying to force a girl to strip would generally be classed as sexual abuse, and physical abuse victims are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves.
It means what it says, regardless of whether it's correct.
For age, lets make it more extreme to highlight the point. A two-year-old takes a car and shoves it into his diaper because he does not want to give it up. So you pull off his diaper to get it. Versus pulling off the underwear of a 21-year-old to get a joint he stuffed in there. Age makes a difference.
For sex, it is better that the girl was searched by other women that searched by men. That is pretty clear.
Whether you think that these factors make something intrusive or not is a matter of opinion, but gender and age does affect how intrusive it is.
Oh, as a nitpick, she didn't actually get stripped naked, just effectively so (her underwear and bra we on, but pulled away from the body).
You appear to think that children should be treated the same way as adults, e.g. children should not be spanked because adults are not. However, that is not appropriate at all.
I have a two-year-old son. When he hits someone else, I grab his hand and firmly say "no", and that is generally the end of it. As an adult, you call the police and file for assault. When my son starts howling, swinging his hands at people, or otherwise starts getting out of hand, I bodily pick him up and place him on the time-out couch, and physically prevent him from leaving until he is calm. Many of these actions are not illegal, and responding to them in an adult physically would be assault. Generally, there are many things you can (and should, for that matter) do to a child that you should never do to an adult.
Further, what a child understands as a consequence will not conform with that an adult understands. In the case of missing a project deadline, an adult could then have a monetary consequence, say no bonus, a smaller raise, or perhaps being fired. My two-year-old certainly wouldn't understand any of those. And for a reward, I would just love to see my boss try to grab me, toss me in the air, and then give me a hug and kiss.
The law itself recognizes that children are not adults. They can not sign contracts. They can't own property. They are expected to be restricted in many ways by their guardians, especially since the guardians are often legally responsible for their wards' actions.
Now comes the case of schools. Schools are a parent in absentia in many cases, and so gain a certain amount of privilege that another random institution would not have. For example, they can restrict the movement of children, e.g. not allowing them off campus or out of class, or prevent them from carrying pocketknives. At the same time they do not have every privilege that a parent has. To take your example, spanking is legal for parents, but not for a school official. And one reason they have these rights, sometimes even over the protests of the parents, is that truancy is illegal. Private schools exist, yes, but unless the parent can afford one, the parent is forced to abide by the school rules since attendance by the child is required.
In sum, I am simply saying that the issue has a lot more grey that you seem to know. I am not stating that spanking is good or bad, or whether the search was okay or not. Merely that kids are not adults, and they can, and should, be treated differently than adults. The question then is just where to draw the line.
Armed with the policy [stating that all software must be legally obtained and licensed], I could point to that when anyone asked me to install non-legal software without fear of retribution [for not installing the software].
It doesn't occur to them that a malfunctioning toaster could suddenly delete their car.
That is an incredibly insightful comment. That makes so clear what it is that people do not get about computers. This implies that that sandboxing needs to be taken to the next level. A VM for every app, perhaps?
Actually, the parent comment correctly points out (sarcastically) that it parent is also correct, in that the US government is not EXTREMELY corrupt. It is merely corrupt, and other places havfe much better examples of EXTREMELY corrupt.
Example: while I was in Laos, I and the motorcycle I was with got pulled over for illegal left turns. I actually counted nine violations on our parts, of which half were ignored, and all but one put on the side once it was clear we had entered into negotiations. We got off for $2. I was told that had everyone been natives, the cost would have been a tenth that. Now, really, do you think you could bribe a US police officer that easily?
I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer
(suppresses Big Brother comment)
I fail to see how electronic monitoring would imply Big Brother. Right now, the government does not have general access to my medical records, and it would seem that making those records more copious due to electronic monitoring would not change anything.
It seems to me that in cases like the nuclear facility, the number of people with real information would be swamped by the number of people speculating.
They are pointing out that isoHunt allows people to find movies (1) where the general public obviously has not been given download permission, (2) that would still be copyrighted under any reasonable length of copyright, and (3) are intended to be paid for. This is one extreme of the spectrum of items that can be found, where the other extreme is obviously public-domain works. However, the point is that the former is possible, and does that mean what isoHunt does is illegal?
It also, of course, puts in some people's minds that isoHunt's sole purpose is to get such movies, but that is just a side benefit to the MPAA and its friends throughout the world.
It has always seemed to me that the Christians have got the
wrong end of the stick. They say that - 1) mankind sinned by eating
the fruit of knowledge, 2) that God was angry with us 3) that Jesus
died to calm God's anger.
Actually, the normal line goes something like this:
1) Adam/Eve sinned by eating the fruit. (Whether mankind as a whole or
idividuals have sinned or are guilty as a consequence depends on one's
concept of original sin.)
2) Everyone has sinned. (This being true no matter how one conceives of
original sin.)
3) The result of sin is death. (Usually this is not stated as a
result of God being angry, but simply as a consequence, with various
reasons for that consequence. Also, "death" does not necessarily mean physical death.)
4) To cleanse oneself from sins, one can make sacrifices. (The old
Jewish sacrifices.)
5) God is merciful, and does not want us to die, so God provided his
son as a sacrifice that makes all other sacrifices unnecessary.
There is generally no anger in the normal way of explaining things. Besides, don't forget that these stories are people's way of
explaining and knowing the unexplainable and unknowable, and so
everything will most assuredly fail to capture reality.
Read the rest of the paragraph. As the actions are commonly termed "the fall", a number of people want to put a positive spin on it and call it "the UPWARD fall".
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
That does not follow. You equate "People who follow the instructions of authority..." with "people who hold strong religious beliefs". They may have significant overlap, but by no means does "hold strong religious beliefs" imply "authoritarian".
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that, or if you vote in favor of gay marriage, or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent, or use a condom or Pay us 10% of your wages or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.
Only the catholics and the baptists. Try Anglicanism.
A way around that is to relax the assumption of a linear motion of time on God's part. If you allow God to work outside of time, then for us to pray for people who have died is not the paradox you present, for "died" is a past tense which does not make sense without time.
Clearly you are not religious. I refer you to Descartes as an excellent example, and one that is well know, at that. There are many others, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
This made me laugh. From TFA: " IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses and can support approximately 4.3 billion individually addressed devices on the Internet. IPv6, on the other hand, uses 128-bit addresses and can support so many devices that only a mathematical expression -- 2 to the 128th power -- can quantify its size. "
I guess 340 undecillion is a mathematical expression.
Well, the cops probably are not sending two swabs (one with a sample, one without) to the lab every time they take samples. So, the lab only has the one item to test.
Feminine hygiene products?
Wikipedia talks about vexatious litigation in California.
But this new format makes two copies of everything, it only packages it in one file! It's the same thing as picking a mp3 and "attaching" a flac file at the end. The space occupied by the too is the same, but in only one file. If you had the two, at least you could save space in your portable players.
You are wrong. See AC's comment and my comment.
And why put the MP3 part there at all?
Because it's needed. AC said it, but I'll reword. Basically, the mp3 is used as part of the lossless compression format by encoding the difference between the mp3 and the original stream as a second stream. The original is obtained by taking the mp3 and applying the corrections noted in the second stream. Besides, it makes the file compatible with any mp3 player (a design goal).
All in all, yes, it's useless, and a stupid idea.
This is cool because it is a new, good lossless format that still is backward compatible with all audio players that support mp3s, which removes a major roadblock towards adoption that other formats like ogg have. It does have the problem of size though, but space is ever cheaper, and the idea is that the benefits may outweigh the cost.
rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will
And if the attempt is not successful, it is only attempted rape.
That said, an adult trying to force a girl to strip would generally be classed as sexual abuse, and physical abuse victims are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves.
It means what it says, regardless of whether it's correct.
For age, lets make it more extreme to highlight the point. A two-year-old takes a car and shoves it into his diaper because he does not want to give it up. So you pull off his diaper to get it. Versus pulling off the underwear of a 21-year-old to get a joint he stuffed in there. Age makes a difference.
For sex, it is better that the girl was searched by other women that searched by men. That is pretty clear.
Whether you think that these factors make something intrusive or not is a matter of opinion, but gender and age does affect how intrusive it is.
Oh, as a nitpick, she didn't actually get stripped naked, just effectively so (her underwear and bra we on, but pulled away from the body).
You appear to think that children should be treated the same way as adults, e.g. children should not be spanked because adults are not. However, that is not appropriate at all.
I have a two-year-old son. When he hits someone else, I grab his hand and firmly say "no", and that is generally the end of it. As an adult, you call the police and file for assault. When my son starts howling, swinging his hands at people, or otherwise starts getting out of hand, I bodily pick him up and place him on the time-out couch, and physically prevent him from leaving until he is calm. Many of these actions are not illegal, and responding to them in an adult physically would be assault. Generally, there are many things you can (and should, for that matter) do to a child that you should never do to an adult.
Further, what a child understands as a consequence will not conform with that an adult understands. In the case of missing a project deadline, an adult could then have a monetary consequence, say no bonus, a smaller raise, or perhaps being fired. My two-year-old certainly wouldn't understand any of those. And for a reward, I would just love to see my boss try to grab me, toss me in the air, and then give me a hug and kiss.
The law itself recognizes that children are not adults. They can not sign contracts. They can't own property. They are expected to be restricted in many ways by their guardians, especially since the guardians are often legally responsible for their wards' actions.
Now comes the case of schools. Schools are a parent in absentia in many cases, and so gain a certain amount of privilege that another random institution would not have. For example, they can restrict the movement of children, e.g. not allowing them off campus or out of class, or prevent them from carrying pocketknives. At the same time they do not have every privilege that a parent has. To take your example, spanking is legal for parents, but not for a school official. And one reason they have these rights, sometimes even over the protests of the parents, is that truancy is illegal. Private schools exist, yes, but unless the parent can afford one, the parent is forced to abide by the school rules since attendance by the child is required.
In sum, I am simply saying that the issue has a lot more grey that you seem to know. I am not stating that spanking is good or bad, or whether the search was okay or not. Merely that kids are not adults, and they can, and should, be treated differently than adults. The question then is just where to draw the line.
Armed with the policy [stating that all software must be legally obtained and licensed], I could point to that when anyone asked me to install non-legal software without fear of retribution [for not installing the software].
Bill Gates has and still could get traffic tickets. In Laos, he would not even get flagged down. So, Laos is worse.
It doesn't occur to them that a malfunctioning toaster could suddenly delete their car.
That is an incredibly insightful comment. That makes so clear what it is that people do not get about computers. This implies that that sandboxing needs to be taken to the next level. A VM for every app, perhaps?
Xenu was beaten out by Colbert, MyYearBook, and Gaia, so it wasn't even second.
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/index.html
Damn! Predict, not predicate. I generally don't do this, but that was bad.
Actually, the parent comment correctly points out (sarcastically) that it parent is also correct, in that the US government is not EXTREMELY corrupt. It is merely corrupt, and other places havfe much better examples of EXTREMELY corrupt.
Example: while I was in Laos, I and the motorcycle I was with got pulled over for illegal left turns. I actually counted nine violations on our parts, of which half were ignored, and all but one put on the side once it was clear we had entered into negotiations. We got off for $2. I was told that had everyone been natives, the cost would have been a tenth that. Now, really, do you think you could bribe a US police officer that easily?
I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer
(suppresses Big Brother comment)
I fail to see how electronic monitoring would imply Big Brother. Right now, the government does not have general access to my medical records, and it would seem that making those records more copious due to electronic monitoring would not change anything.
It seems to me that in cases like the nuclear facility, the number of people with real information would be swamped by the number of people speculating.
They are pointing out that isoHunt allows people to find movies (1) where the general public obviously has not been given download permission, (2) that would still be copyrighted under any reasonable length of copyright, and (3) are intended to be paid for. This is one extreme of the spectrum of items that can be found, where the other extreme is obviously public-domain works. However, the point is that the former is possible, and does that mean what isoHunt does is illegal?
It also, of course, puts in some people's minds that isoHunt's sole purpose is to get such movies, but that is just a side benefit to the MPAA and its friends throughout the world.
It has always seemed to me that the Christians have got the wrong end of the stick. They say that - 1) mankind sinned by eating the fruit of knowledge, 2) that God was angry with us 3) that Jesus died to calm God's anger.
Actually, the normal line goes something like this:
1) Adam/Eve sinned by eating the fruit. (Whether mankind as a whole or idividuals have sinned or are guilty as a consequence depends on one's concept of original sin.)
2) Everyone has sinned. (This being true no matter how one conceives of original sin.)
3) The result of sin is death. (Usually this is not stated as a result of God being angry, but simply as a consequence, with various reasons for that consequence. Also, "death" does not necessarily mean physical death.)
4) To cleanse oneself from sins, one can make sacrifices. (The old Jewish sacrifices.)
5) God is merciful, and does not want us to die, so God provided his son as a sacrifice that makes all other sacrifices unnecessary.
There is generally no anger in the normal way of explaining things. Besides, don't forget that these stories are people's way of explaining and knowing the unexplainable and unknowable, and so everything will most assuredly fail to capture reality.
Read the rest of the paragraph. As the actions are commonly termed "the fall", a number of people want to put a positive spin on it and call it "the UPWARD fall".
[...]and some chicks running in bikinis.
Now I've got to read it. I hope it's not bad karma to do so.
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
That does not follow. You equate "People who follow the instructions of authority ..." with "people who hold strong religious beliefs". They may have significant overlap, but by no means does "hold strong religious beliefs" imply "authoritarian".
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that, or if you vote in favor of gay marriage, or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent, or use a condom or Pay us 10% of your wages or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.
Only the catholics and the baptists. Try Anglicanism.
A way around that is to relax the assumption of a linear motion of time on God's part. If you allow God to work outside of time, then for us to pray for people who have died is not the paradox you present, for "died" is a past tense which does not make sense without time.
Clearly you are not religious. I refer you to Descartes as an excellent example, and one that is well know, at that. There are many others, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.