Why do you have to take everything so literally? I only meant that even if she was just breastfeeding, if her breast(s) was(were) visible it doesn't matter that it was for her baby. If the restaurant doesn't want visible breasts(nipple or not) inside then they should be allowed to ask her to stop. When I compared that to "taking of your shirt" I was thinking about the social confrontation which would have been acceptable in many people's opinion. And like I said in another post, of course if the breast is not visible (like most mothers do when feeding their baby) it's not a problem at all. Some on the other hand, do show them and I really think it's just to get attention.
I didn't say it's wrong for a woman to take off her shirt. I really think people should be allowed to do whatever they want and if what they do is of poor taste society will sort it out in time by giving them a hard time.
I only said that _if_ a woman's breast is forbidden in some place then it should be forbidden even if it's visible because she's breastfeeding. This brings me to the next point I want to clear up. I know most women don't show their breasts when feeding their baby but some don't. They do it to get attention, you can't deny that. Also, I think that since facebook censored the images, there were probably visible breast(s) in there. (I didn't RTFA)
A woman's breast (while feeding or not) will always attract attention from men that want to see breasts, from women that like babies and everything that has to do with them, from people which are offended by the tiniest sign of nudity, and so on.
I don't think there is anything horrible about breastfeeding. I said "I don't think the fact that a woman is breastfeeding her baby makes any difference about showing her breasts." and that's all I meant with it.
And I certainly have nothing against the female anatomy. I like women, every part of them. They are beautiful and sensitive, a lot more than men, no matter what the ancient Greeks thought:D.
I think you're right. I don't think the fact that a woman is breastfeeding her baby makes any difference about showing her breasts. They will still be visible and attract attention (or disgust in some cases; yes, that's a little misogynistic). If a picture of a breast (and/or the breast itself) is not permitted somewhere then it shouldn't matter whether a baby is attached to it (the breast).
The same should go for the story about the breastfeeding mom in the restaurant. It's the same thing as taking off your shirt in a public place. She should have just left and feed her baby at home or somewhere no one cares what's happening around, like a subway:P.
No, the huge thin sheet only got to 8 and they needed a forklift to fold it. 12 folds would take an extremely large (or very thin) sheet of paper. That's because folds make the paper exponentially thicker and smaller. So, for the same thickness for each new fold you need to make the paper 2 times exponentially larger. I'm too lazy to think whether it's something like x^2^2 or (x^2)^2 (or just x^2 since you fold it along width and height alternatively). Anyway it grows fast since an A4 sheet can be folded 7 times and a warehouse sized thinner sheet gets to 8.
This post is by chance on topic:
I've noticed that (at least in my generation, I'm 19 (*)) people don't think the generation before them knew many of the stuff they knew. Like swear words, expressions, jokes and other similar things. Maybe a generation is like a new day in the life of a species and that species doesn't remember the previous 'day' properly. You don't remember everything you did yesterday and feel weird when something similar happens again.
(*) notice how I have the same problem, did people in your generation think that their parents/grandparents had never thought about some kind of joke or expression?
I did say "unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs". I guess it does have some nice features (I only looked at a screenshot, I was more interested on how a window with 200 tabs opened would look). OTOH, why do you need 11 galeon windows open? Do you really work with all 150+ tabs at the same time? If you spend 2minutes on each tab at a time, it takes 5 hours to go through all of them. Why not just bookmark, close, and open back?
Still, unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs (and by a quick screenshot check it doesn't) I don't think having 200 tabs open is going to be easy to manage (by the user). The first poster probably thought about bookmarks or sites he visited but said 'tabs'.
No, I don't have an Antivirus, firewall or any updates done and I don't have any problems, my current install is still OK (I had a virus or two but those were my fault:D).
I'm not sure how parallels gives the virtual machine an internet connection but if it NATs the external connection of the mac then you are protected against those attacks that don't require the user to click on stuff in a browser. If you have a machine connected directly to the internet and no firewall, antivirus, updates, etc you could theoretically get infected by someone exploiting a bug in the services XP provides by default.
Hehe, I know you're joking but I am a little pedantic and have to say that the gases you would provide that way would not be helpful. They are not useful for life and very hard to convert back in life supporting gases.
There is a small loss of atmosphere anyway from other factors. Still, the atmosphere is slowly regenerated by the combination of gaseous emissions (like from volcanoes) and their conversion to life sustaining gases by low order life forms (plankton or something like that). Those emissions are slowing down because the Earth is cooling down but the loss of atmosphere (by natural causes) is way beyond our foreseeable future (maybe more than the lifespan of the Earth).
Sorry, too lazy to add breaks, feel free to stop reading it when it gets too trollish.
With the risk of getting burned, I think that the "American way of life" propaganda is similar to what Hitler (I don't believe in Godwin's law) was doing to promote his campaign to his followers. I'm not an American but from what I see in movies, on the news, etc. I can tell that the American way of life has become like a creed. The American government is using it as a pretext for invading the Orient (yes, invade) and all the freaking pep talks in the movies are talking about maintaining the freedom and the way of life of the USA or converting others to it. The movie makers got the thing from the government and that made all the average Americans think the USA is actually doing good to those crazy Muslims or whoever the USA picks on. Yes, most of you here will say that not all Americans are like that. True but I really think it's true because if the average American is at as stupid as the average guy everywhere else (and, again, I think they are) then they are susceptible to that kind of propaganda. This may look like a rant but it wasn't intended as such, I tried to be objective and I have no problem against Americans. If anyone is brainwashed he/she will not know that and is not guilty of what happens because of that. Also, I cannot say I'm not a victim of a similar brainwashing considering the USA, I can only confront it with others and see what is true.
"mc^2+processing inefficiencies"
Yes, that seems more accurate. I was thinking it wrong there. Now if we can get the energy out/in ratio above 50% of mc^2 this would create huge amounts of energy.
They created billions of positrons with a high power laser. The antimass(?) of a positron is the mass of an electron or 9.1E-31. Let's round it up and say we have 1E+12 positrons. Combine them with 1E+12 electrons, you get
9.1E-31*2E+12*(3E+8)^2=0.018 J.
Now I'm guessing the laser used is pretty powerful and that it consumes a lot of energy. If we take the specs of the laser linked in the summary, then it used 150J on one pulse which is not the true amount of energy they put into the device (it says it takes 30minutes between pulses at full power). The energy used is thousands or millions of times greater than the energy gained.
Of course, lasers might not be the most energy efficient way of creating antimatter but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to turn m matter into antimatter you will need at least 2*mc^2 energy (at least that's my intuitive guess).
Nuclear devices emit huge amount of energy with relatively small energy inputs because the reaction is selfsustaining, something inside the reaction keeps it alive. What you want is something that destabilizes matter and makes it turn into energy by, say, throwing a special particle at neutrons and/or protons. Turning it into antimatter only to collide it with matter afterwards is just a huge waste of energy.
He as a guy who values quality over price(or quantity if you want) sees this as a mixed blessing since people would probably care more for quantity. That would make Lego lower their prices which might lead to a diminish in the quality of the work.
Usually when something is produced by many companies in big numbers marketing starts to take over and quality is most of the times compromised for flashiness or ease of use and other idiot friendly things.
An example that comes to mind is digital cameras. Most cameras these days have more megapixels than they can handle and most parameters are automatic which in IMHO is retarded. It's really hard to find a camera that lets you set the focus and exposure as you like. Instead they have features like print directly from the camera, post on hi5 or something like that... That happening to Lego would make it a joke and destroy one of the only toys that actually educates children instead of dumbing them down (or brainwashing if you want to be more extreme).
PS: Before you start flaming me about the camera example, I am OK with having an automatic focus/exposure/etc. But not including a slider that lets you select 1/100 seems stupid since it's a simple UI element and if you can program an automatic system for the focus you should be able to make it manual. Also, when I said "more megapixels than they can handle" I was talking about the noise that appears because the CCD is just too small for the resolution they are cramming on it. There is a proven limit on the resolution that depends on the lens size and CCD size and as far as I can tell most cameras exceed the limit.
True but I don't think it avoids injuries by lowering your performance but by preparing your body for physical effort. Especially for people doing this consistently, it can work just because of the force of habit. The body knows because of the stretching that it has to go into the state in which you have good reflexes (for falling and the other hazards of training) such that you can avoid getting hurt. Also, I don't think it's a very serious set back on your performances. I mean, after doing any kind of effort, you are going to have weaker muscles.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my point, only more concise :D
Check my response to the previous poster.
Why do you have to take everything so literally? I only meant that even if she was just breastfeeding, if her breast(s) was(were) visible it doesn't matter that it was for her baby. If the restaurant doesn't want visible breasts(nipple or not) inside then they should be allowed to ask her to stop. When I compared that to "taking of your shirt" I was thinking about the social confrontation which would have been acceptable in many people's opinion. And like I said in another post, of course if the breast is not visible (like most mothers do when feeding their baby) it's not a problem at all. Some on the other hand, do show them and I really think it's just to get attention.
I didn't say it's wrong for a woman to take off her shirt. I really think people should be allowed to do whatever they want and if what they do is of poor taste society will sort it out in time by giving them a hard time.
:D.
I only said that _if_ a woman's breast is forbidden in some place then it should be forbidden even if it's visible because she's breastfeeding. This brings me to the next point I want to clear up. I know most women don't show their breasts when feeding their baby but some don't. They do it to get attention, you can't deny that. Also, I think that since facebook censored the images, there were probably visible breast(s) in there. (I didn't RTFA)
A woman's breast (while feeding or not) will always attract attention from men that want to see breasts, from women that like babies and everything that has to do with them, from people which are offended by the tiniest sign of nudity, and so on.
I don't think there is anything horrible about breastfeeding. I said "I don't think the fact that a woman is breastfeeding her baby makes any difference about showing her breasts." and that's all I meant with it.
And I certainly have nothing against the female anatomy. I like women, every part of them. They are beautiful and sensitive, a lot more than men, no matter what the ancient Greeks thought
And your nickname is "Frosty Piss", this is quite a hypocritical thread.
(except me, I never judge other people for what they say)
I think you're right. I don't think the fact that a woman is breastfeeding her baby makes any difference about showing her breasts. They will still be visible and attract attention (or disgust in some cases; yes, that's a little misogynistic). If a picture of a breast (and/or the breast itself) is not permitted somewhere then it shouldn't matter whether a baby is attached to it (the breast).
:P.
The same should go for the story about the breastfeeding mom in the restaurant. It's the same thing as taking off your shirt in a public place. She should have just left and feed her baby at home or somewhere no one cares what's happening around, like a subway
No, the huge thin sheet only got to 8 and they needed a forklift to fold it. 12 folds would take an extremely large (or very thin) sheet of paper. That's because folds make the paper exponentially thicker and smaller. So, for the same thickness for each new fold you need to make the paper 2 times exponentially larger. I'm too lazy to think whether it's something like x^2^2 or (x^2)^2 (or just x^2 since you fold it along width and height alternatively). Anyway it grows fast since an A4 sheet can be folded 7 times and a warehouse sized thinner sheet gets to 8.
This post is by chance on topic:
I've noticed that (at least in my generation, I'm 19 (*)) people don't think the generation before them knew many of the stuff they knew. Like swear words, expressions, jokes and other similar things. Maybe a generation is like a new day in the life of a species and that species doesn't remember the previous 'day' properly. You don't remember everything you did yesterday and feel weird when something similar happens again.
(*) notice how I have the same problem, did people in your generation think that their parents/grandparents had never thought about some kind of joke or expression?
I did say "unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs". I guess it does have some nice features (I only looked at a screenshot, I was more interested on how a window with 200 tabs opened would look). OTOH, why do you need 11 galeon windows open? Do you really work with all 150+ tabs at the same time? If you spend 2minutes on each tab at a time, it takes 5 hours to go through all of them. Why not just bookmark, close, and open back?
Still, unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs (and by a quick screenshot check it doesn't) I don't think having 200 tabs open is going to be easy to manage (by the user). The first poster probably thought about bookmarks or sites he visited but said 'tabs'.
Are you sure it's not a fancy name for a safe?
No, I don't have an Antivirus, firewall or any updates done and I don't have any problems, my current install is still OK (I had a virus or two but those were my fault :D).
I'm not sure how parallels gives the virtual machine an internet connection but if it NATs the external connection of the mac then you are protected against those attacks that don't require the user to click on stuff in a browser. If you have a machine connected directly to the internet and no firewall, antivirus, updates, etc you could theoretically get infected by someone exploiting a bug in the services XP provides by default.
Maybe that's the day they find proof of the Higgs Boson and the world as we know it will change?
Hehe, I know you're joking but I am a little pedantic and have to say that the gases you would provide that way would not be helpful. They are not useful for life and very hard to convert back in life supporting gases.
There is a small loss of atmosphere anyway from other factors. Still, the atmosphere is slowly regenerated by the combination of gaseous emissions (like from volcanoes) and their conversion to life sustaining gases by low order life forms (plankton or something like that). Those emissions are slowing down because the Earth is cooling down but the loss of atmosphere (by natural causes) is way beyond our foreseeable future (maybe more than the lifespan of the Earth).
Sorry, too lazy to add breaks, feel free to stop reading it when it gets too trollish.
With the risk of getting burned, I think that the "American way of life" propaganda is similar to what Hitler (I don't believe in Godwin's law) was doing to promote his campaign to his followers. I'm not an American but from what I see in movies, on the news, etc. I can tell that the American way of life has become like a creed. The American government is using it as a pretext for invading the Orient (yes, invade) and all the freaking pep talks in the movies are talking about maintaining the freedom and the way of life of the USA or converting others to it. The movie makers got the thing from the government and that made all the average Americans think the USA is actually doing good to those crazy Muslims or whoever the USA picks on. Yes, most of you here will say that not all Americans are like that. True but I really think it's true because if the average American is at as stupid as the average guy everywhere else (and, again, I think they are) then they are susceptible to that kind of propaganda. This may look like a rant but it wasn't intended as such, I tried to be objective and I have no problem against Americans. If anyone is brainwashed he/she will not know that and is not guilty of what happens because of that. Also, I cannot say I'm not a victim of a similar brainwashing considering the USA, I can only confront it with others and see what is true.
"mc^2+processing inefficiencies"
Yes, that seems more accurate. I was thinking it wrong there. Now if we can get the energy out/in ratio above 50% of mc^2 this would create huge amounts of energy.
Sorry, the result for the energy should be 0.16J not 0.018J.
The rest of the post still stands.
They created billions of positrons with a high power laser. The antimass(?) of a positron is the mass of an electron or 9.1E-31. Let's round it up and say we have 1E+12 positrons. Combine them with 1E+12 electrons, you get
9.1E-31*2E+12*(3E+8)^2=0.018 J.
Now I'm guessing the laser used is pretty powerful and that it consumes a lot of energy. If we take the specs of the laser linked in the summary, then it used 150J on one pulse which is not the true amount of energy they put into the device (it says it takes 30minutes between pulses at full power). The energy used is thousands or millions of times greater than the energy gained.
Of course, lasers might not be the most energy efficient way of creating antimatter but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to turn m matter into antimatter you will need at least 2*mc^2 energy (at least that's my intuitive guess).
Nuclear devices emit huge amount of energy with relatively small energy inputs because the reaction is selfsustaining, something inside the reaction keeps it alive. What you want is something that destabilizes matter and makes it turn into energy by, say, throwing a special particle at neutrons and/or protons. Turning it into antimatter only to collide it with matter afterwards is just a huge waste of energy.
I think he/she continued the joke but honestly, on Slashdot you can never tell for sure. Maybe I'm joking.
He as a guy who values quality over price(or quantity if you want) sees this as a mixed blessing since people would probably care more for quantity. That would make Lego lower their prices which might lead to a diminish in the quality of the work.
Usually when something is produced by many companies in big numbers marketing starts to take over and quality is most of the times compromised for flashiness or ease of use and other idiot friendly things.
An example that comes to mind is digital cameras. Most cameras these days have more megapixels than they can handle and most parameters are automatic which in IMHO is retarded. It's really hard to find a camera that lets you set the focus and exposure as you like. Instead they have features like print directly from the camera, post on hi5 or something like that... That happening to Lego would make it a joke and destroy one of the only toys that actually educates children instead of dumbing them down (or brainwashing if you want to be more extreme).
PS: Before you start flaming me about the camera example, I am OK with having an automatic focus/exposure/etc. But not including a slider that lets you select 1/100 seems stupid since it's a simple UI element and if you can program an automatic system for the focus you should be able to make it manual. Also, when I said "more megapixels than they can handle" I was talking about the noise that appears because the CCD is just too small for the resolution they are cramming on it. There is a proven limit on the resolution that depends on the lens size and CCD size and as far as I can tell most cameras exceed the limit.
Right, my mistake... I'll destroy my Futurama geek card (or rwhatever) now.
Nah, it's just normal poop now...
True but I don't think it avoids injuries by lowering your performance but by preparing your body for physical effort. Especially for people doing this consistently, it can work just because of the force of habit. The body knows because of the stretching that it has to go into the state in which you have good reflexes (for falling and the other hazards of training) such that you can avoid getting hurt. Also, I don't think it's a very serious set back on your performances. I mean, after doing any kind of effort, you are going to have weaker muscles.