Yeah, well, when my 'mobile phone' has more computational power that my 15-year old 'personal computer', where do I draw the line?
Added to that, there's also more hard drive space, more RAM, a better sound card, a better video card. The only thing smaller is the *screen*. Now the screen of an iPad is larger that that of said 15-year old computer. So, how exactly is it NOT a personal computer? Because Steve said so? Sorry to be unconvinced.
Well, is seems pretty likely actually... A 2-D movie is generally played at 24 frames/seconds. A 3-D movie is played at least à 24 frames/second/eye (ie 24 left frames, 24 right frames), if you use 2-D glasses (which would filter away say all the left frames), you still get 24 frames/second, which is like a normal movie.
Now some 3-D technologies plays the movies at a higher frame rate (I think 144 frames/second in all, though each frame is repeated 3 times (see RealD)), so one still gets a high enough frame rate.
Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?
I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.
Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act.
It is still illegal, which was the only point I was trying to make, no legal way to have sex with a child.
Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children.
There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.
I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power? In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts? This is a honest question, as I'm possibly prejudiced in these matters.
You're right, I haven't proved anything. My point was to the GGP, just because people view porn and cause no harm doesn't mean anything, because the situation is hugely different, as the sex depicted in regular porn is legal, and someone can just go out and do it (finding a willing partner is an issue of course... But not the issue at discussion here), as child porn depicts something that is illegal, so that nobody can "go out and do it".
The situations are quite different, therefore one can't draw that kind of conclusion.
I'm pretty sure there is very few Vatican citizens (the whole Swiss Papal Guard are (of course) Swiss. Other members of the High Clergy are from countries around the world, temporarily serving at the Vatican). So this lets the Pope himself, which is his own citizen, and I don't see anyone else.
By the way, the Code of Canon Law seems to say that men cannot marry before 16, and women before 14 (see Canon 1083 and that the conference of bishops can set a higher age locally (this is the assembly of bishops in a given country).
Correlation is not causation - are you suggesting they only have sex because they watched porn?
I'm suggesting a correlation, by no means a causation, I'm perfectly aware that some people have sex and don't watch porn. (And perhaps some people do watch porn and don't like to have sex, but they may be aberrant points)
Most people don't have the choice to have sex with someone they want - people routinely might fancy someone, who doesn't wish to have sex with them - I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?
Of course not... But at least it would be legal if both parties were willing to have sex. In the case of children, it wouldn't. That was the only point I was trying to make actually. The fact that people watch regular porn and live with it isn't relevant, because, it is not that rare to find a willing partner in the general subset of people that one's attracted to. Now if this subset is children, it is more problematic, because there is no legal solution except abstinence.
I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?
Not even close to everyone, but, yeah, rape exists, so some must do it. That was not my point however.
I wouldn't want any woman to be near you, with that attitude...
Are you suggesting that I must be a rapist, based on your own extrapolations of what I said earlier? Or that I must approve of this behaviour, because I acknowledge its existence? And you lecture me about flawed logic?
We criminalise actual images of children because of the harm done in their production, not because of the hoops of illogic that you are trying to argue.
This doesn't explain the ban on sexually explicit drawings of children in some countries. Therefore, some must criminalise images of children because of both the harm done on actual children and the "hoops of illogic I try to argue".
My point was not to agree with the post that begins with "Let's not split hairs." by AC. Just saying that regular people watching regular porn might not be a good counter-example.
Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.
You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".
Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.
Millions of people view porn, those people generally like to have sex, and I assume it is generally the same kind that the porn they look at (a man looking at asian porn would love to bone an asian woman, I have of course no proof of that)
People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)
I think the point of the GP's GP is that consumption of drawn child pornography creates a demand for actual child pornography. Could anyone say that consumers of drawn material would never look at the live stuff? Do statistics about that exist?
I believe that some people that seeks lolicon images would never look at the live stuff, for moral/legal reasons. I believe the majority not to be that righteous.
So yeah, drawn child pornography doesn't hurt actual children directly, but legalising it could allow for a greater demand, quickly followed by a greater offer in the illegal stuff.
Firefox 3.6.3 : 40 or so fps
Chrome 4.1.249.1045 (42898) (dunno if this is old) : 1 - 2 fps
Chromium 5.0.370.0 (43808) : 2 - 4 fps
IE7 goes to 50 fps but doesn't react to the position of the mouse.
This works with Newtonian physics. But relativity is so much harder to understand than that. I don't understand it fully. But I think it states that, due to relativistic effects, no two points can move away from one another faster than light, even if they both move away from a third point at the speed of light in opposite direction. I don't really understand the implications of this though.
Oh, OK, then it must have been speculation on what the video game industry could look like in a few years.
It should be noted that with PC gaming a few years back, one could trade games with friends, it is a little more difficult to do that now with things like Steam.
I'd prefer "Hacking the PS3 to run home-brew games by giving access to the GPU in the other OS functionality". Now I don't own a PS3, but not having access to the GPU under Linux seems frustrating, especially for game developing.
Actually, for flights which would take a little longer than 12 hours, it might be possible to take off on the morning and land on the evening several time zones westward, thus gaining a few hours of sunlight. while it would not match the rotational speed of the Earth, except near poles, it could still be effective.
There is also the fact that taking a plane to go a short way eastward, it would make no sense to go westward and fly around the Earth, so this applies only to long flights.
I'm way more concerned about how it performs if the weather is cloudy, though that might not be a problem once it reaches upper atmosphere above the clouds, it could be a problem for take-off.
This is not entirely true. iPad would benefit from the iPhone and iPod Touch popularity, because it is something relatively similar.
On the other hand, lots of early adopters doesn't necessarily mean success of a platform. Lots of early adopters is a sign that the hype is working well. It could fail later. I'm waiting too see how the iPad will sale on the long run.
MS vaporware product that nobody has ever heard of so far.
Oh my... I'm classified as nobody then... as are a number of the people I know! Seriously, I'm not even interested in notebook-like devices and I heard of it.
The fact that Apple likes to communicate three months before launching something they have been working on for years and that Microsoft prefers to communicate a short time after they just began to work on something doesn't say anything about the "vaporware" status. Who knows about the deadlines of Apple's iPad when the project wasn't known to the public?
Your point is still perfectly valid though, the iPad case is not made to look like a Courier Tablet, anyone vaguely interested in the iPad, or living in an industrialized country would know it was a one-sided tablet.
Because cooling it below 100 K is going to need very efficient insulation, as the temperature gradient is going to be enormous. Cooling below 100 K is probably not going to be cost efficient for anyone except perhaps big companies.
In France, downloading one copyrighted work can lead to 3 years imprisonment and a 300 000 € fine (that's roughly $400,000). Statistics consider a third of the population of France would be in prison if the law was in effect (this law has never been invoked in any trial AFAIK, probably because judges have ruled IP address is not a proof of identity).
If someone wished to enforce that law, everyone I know would be thrown in jail, the same law applies for recording cable transmissions and giving the VHS/DVD to a friend or neighbour.
Keep in mind that IANAL, and that my sources on this are not 100% accurate, but I still think this is true.
Actually, it began with a trademark issue, but the developer renamed graciously the script, previously named Facebook Purity, it's now named Fluff Bunny Purity. Seeing that Facebook wanted the developer to get rid of the plugin, it goes for the "do not modify the way our site looks like" line, which is harder do defend, mainly because it should not be (and probably is not) illegal (meaning there is no clear law to apply here, but the complex state of intellectual property can screw things up in this case. Is the plugin modifying and redistributing some copyright material to the end-user?)
I confirm this, even if in France it tends to disappear, replaced by single phase. It was even used in a "normal" fashion in the fifties and sixties (wall plugs were 3-pinned without ground, and 4-pinned with), this was abandoned, probably because of complexity or failure to build usable things powered by three-phased current.
Organisations with huge needs for current still do have them though.
As for using amps, this is cryptic, of course voltage is a given, so giving only amps indicates the power consumed in the instant. It still has to be multiplied by time though, if I use my oven for 5 minutes or for 70 000 hours, it will not cost me the same.
OK, I checked, apparently "eco" comes from greek , meaning "home". Sorry, I talked too fast.
Another point that one could make, is the fact that the term is already in use for describing something different, that have nothing to do with computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, when my 'mobile phone' has more computational power that my 15-year old 'personal computer', where do I draw the line?
Added to that, there's also more hard drive space, more RAM, a better sound card, a better video card. The only thing smaller is the *screen*. Now the screen of an iPad is larger that that of said 15-year old computer. So, how exactly is it NOT a personal computer? Because Steve said so? Sorry to be unconvinced.
Well, is seems pretty likely actually... A 2-D movie is generally played at 24 frames/seconds. A 3-D movie is played at least à 24 frames/second/eye (ie 24 left frames, 24 right frames), if you use 2-D glasses (which would filter away say all the left frames), you still get 24 frames/second, which is like a normal movie.
Now some 3-D technologies plays the movies at a higher frame rate (I think 144 frames/second in all, though each frame is repeated 3 times (see RealD)), so one still gets a high enough frame rate.
Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?
I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.
Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act.
It is still illegal, which was the only point I was trying to make, no legal way to have sex with a child.
Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children.
There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.
I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power? In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts? This is a honest question, as I'm possibly prejudiced in these matters.
You're right, I haven't proved anything. My point was to the GGP, just because people view porn and cause no harm doesn't mean anything, because the situation is hugely different, as the sex depicted in regular porn is legal, and someone can just go out and do it (finding a willing partner is an issue of course... But not the issue at discussion here), as child porn depicts something that is illegal, so that nobody can "go out and do it".
The situations are quite different, therefore one can't draw that kind of conclusion.
I'm pretty sure there is very few Vatican citizens (the whole Swiss Papal Guard are (of course) Swiss. Other members of the High Clergy are from countries around the world, temporarily serving at the Vatican). So this lets the Pope himself, which is his own citizen, and I don't see anyone else.
By the way, the Code of Canon Law seems to say that men cannot marry before 16, and women before 14 (see Canon 1083 and that the conference of bishops can set a higher age locally (this is the assembly of bishops in a given country).
Correlation is not causation - are you suggesting they only have sex because they watched porn?
I'm suggesting a correlation, by no means a causation, I'm perfectly aware that some people have sex and don't watch porn. (And perhaps some people do watch porn and don't like to have sex, but they may be aberrant points)
Most people don't have the choice to have sex with someone they want - people routinely might fancy someone, who doesn't wish to have sex with them - I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?
Of course not... But at least it would be legal if both parties were willing to have sex. In the case of children, it wouldn't. That was the only point I was trying to make actually. The fact that people watch regular porn and live with it isn't relevant, because, it is not that rare to find a willing partner in the general subset of people that one's attracted to. Now if this subset is children, it is more problematic, because there is no legal solution except abstinence.
I guess according to you, this means that they go and rape them?
Not even close to everyone, but, yeah, rape exists, so some must do it. That was not my point however.
I wouldn't want any woman to be near you, with that attitude...
Are you suggesting that I must be a rapist, based on your own extrapolations of what I said earlier? Or that I must approve of this behaviour, because I acknowledge its existence? And you lecture me about flawed logic?
We criminalise actual images of children because of the harm done in their production, not because of the hoops of illogic that you are trying to argue.
This doesn't explain the ban on sexually explicit drawings of children in some countries. Therefore, some must criminalise images of children because of both the harm done on actual children and the "hoops of illogic I try to argue".
My point was not to agree with the post that begins with "Let's not split hairs." by AC. Just saying that regular people watching regular porn might not be a good counter-example.
Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.
You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".
Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.
Millions of people view porn, those people generally like to have sex, and I assume it is generally the same kind that the porn they look at (a man looking at asian porn would love to bone an asian woman, I have of course no proof of that)
People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)
I think the point of the GP's GP is that consumption of drawn child pornography creates a demand for actual child pornography. Could anyone say that consumers of drawn material would never look at the live stuff? Do statistics about that exist?
I believe that some people that seeks lolicon images would never look at the live stuff, for moral/legal reasons. I believe the majority not to be that righteous.
So yeah, drawn child pornography doesn't hurt actual children directly, but legalising it could allow for a greater demand, quickly followed by a greater offer in the illegal stuff.
Firefox 3.6.3 : 40 or so fps Chrome 4.1.249.1045 (42898) (dunno if this is old) : 1 - 2 fps Chromium 5.0.370.0 (43808) : 2 - 4 fps IE7 goes to 50 fps but doesn't react to the position of the mouse.
This works with Newtonian physics. But relativity is so much harder to understand than that. I don't understand it fully. But I think it states that, due to relativistic effects, no two points can move away from one another faster than light, even if they both move away from a third point at the speed of light in opposite direction. I don't really understand the implications of this though.
Oh, OK, then it must have been speculation on what the video game industry could look like in a few years.
It should be noted that with PC gaming a few years back, one could trade games with friends, it is a little more difficult to do that now with things like Steam.
You can still trade games with friends? I thought the gaming industry DRM'd that too. Doesn't Sony demands online registration of a game to work?
It's been over a decade since I played on a game console, but the rumors I've heard stated things like that...
And when they deactivate the Bluray drive because one could use it to run pirated games, it will just be a System.
I'd prefer "Hacking the PS3 to run home-brew games by giving access to the GPU in the other OS functionality". Now I don't own a PS3, but not having access to the GPU under Linux seems frustrating, especially for game developing.
Actually, for flights which would take a little longer than 12 hours, it might be possible to take off on the morning and land on the evening several time zones westward, thus gaining a few hours of sunlight. while it would not match the rotational speed of the Earth, except near poles, it could still be effective.
There is also the fact that taking a plane to go a short way eastward, it would make no sense to go westward and fly around the Earth, so this applies only to long flights.
I'm way more concerned about how it performs if the weather is cloudy, though that might not be a problem once it reaches upper atmosphere above the clouds, it could be a problem for take-off.
This is not entirely true. iPad would benefit from the iPhone and iPod Touch popularity, because it is something relatively similar.
On the other hand, lots of early adopters doesn't necessarily mean success of a platform. Lots of early adopters is a sign that the hype is working well. It could fail later. I'm waiting too see how the iPad will sale on the long run.
And that would also be because the iPhone had made a lot more sales on its first weekend too.
MS vaporware product that nobody has ever heard of so far.
Oh my... I'm classified as nobody then... as are a number of the people I know! Seriously, I'm not even interested in notebook-like devices and I heard of it.
The fact that Apple likes to communicate three months before launching something they have been working on for years and that Microsoft prefers to communicate a short time after they just began to work on something doesn't say anything about the "vaporware" status. Who knows about the deadlines of Apple's iPad when the project wasn't known to the public?
Your point is still perfectly valid though, the iPad case is not made to look like a Courier Tablet, anyone vaguely interested in the iPad, or living in an industrialized country would know it was a one-sided tablet.
Because cooling it below 100 K is going to need very efficient insulation, as the temperature gradient is going to be enormous. Cooling below 100 K is probably not going to be cost efficient for anyone except perhaps big companies.
In France, downloading one copyrighted work can lead to 3 years imprisonment and a 300 000 € fine (that's roughly $400,000). Statistics consider a third of the population of France would be in prison if the law was in effect (this law has never been invoked in any trial AFAIK, probably because judges have ruled IP address is not a proof of identity).
If someone wished to enforce that law, everyone I know would be thrown in jail, the same law applies for recording cable transmissions and giving the VHS/DVD to a friend or neighbour.
Keep in mind that IANAL, and that my sources on this are not 100% accurate, but I still think this is true.
Actually, it began with a trademark issue, but the developer renamed graciously the script, previously named Facebook Purity, it's now named Fluff Bunny Purity. Seeing that Facebook wanted the developer to get rid of the plugin, it goes for the "do not modify the way our site looks like" line, which is harder do defend, mainly because it should not be (and probably is not) illegal (meaning there is no clear law to apply here, but the complex state of intellectual property can screw things up in this case. Is the plugin modifying and redistributing some copyright material to the end-user?)
I confirm this, even if in France it tends to disappear, replaced by single phase. It was even used in a "normal" fashion in the fifties and sixties (wall plugs were 3-pinned without ground, and 4-pinned with), this was abandoned, probably because of complexity or failure to build usable things powered by three-phased current.
Organisations with huge needs for current still do have them though.
As for using amps, this is cryptic, of course voltage is a given, so giving only amps indicates the power consumed in the instant. It still has to be multiplied by time though, if I use my oven for 5 minutes or for 70 000 hours, it will not cost me the same.
OK, I checked, apparently "eco" comes from greek , meaning "home". Sorry, I talked too fast.
Another point that one could make, is the fact that the term is already in use for describing something different, that have nothing to do with computers.
There is nothing about it that justifies the prefix "eco".