As light as possible:) there are many different kind of rapes, from consenting sex between teens of the wrong age to a father abusing his five-year-old daughter. Having a single all-encompassing "rape" does disservice to Justice.
I am not saying punishment should be light as a matter of principle, but as light as possible given the ultimate objective which is to minimise crime and maximise the number of functioning citizens (that is the result of actual research).
As it happens, studies show that the swiftness of the judgement and application of the sentence matters more than the sentence itself to prevent repeats.
Now the nature of the sentences does serve as deterrence. But humans are not very good with orders of magnitude, so probably being on the severe side serves no purpose (that is only my opinion, as far as I know).
And how does the crime rate correlate to the severity of sentences? Is it the role of the governments to protect the public, or simply to follow what the mob seems to want, never mind that it is absurd, destructive, dangerous, or sometimes simply evil?
The wish of the people are to be respected, certainly, but what if the people wishes for duels to the death to be legal?
I hold similar beliefs, and to me, the punitive aspects of prison should only be as required to a) be a deterrence, b) serve as a lesson (as in you have to feel punished so you understand what you did is bad) and c) symbolically represent atonement to society. the latter part is really necessary because then the criminal can feel they deserved their punishment and got better from it, but also have the society consider someone who has finished his sentence as a new person.
Unfortunately, too many people feel that legal punishment is a means to avenge the victim. This is cruel, wasteful and essentially inefficient. Demand punishments as light as possible to deter: this will empty prisons, be less costly, and make for a more balanced society.
Ha, what do you expect, when contributors from Europe are for the most part British europhobes, fed from their tender age by MurdochMedia.
Indeed, what the text says is "a judge can order disconnection, given cause", and this got interpreted as "Big Corporations Have The Right To Arbitrarily Disconnect You, And This Right Was Given To Them By The Evil EU/Big Gvt."
Of course, the second version sells, wayyy better.
In the example you are giving, I believe it is not sexism. It is either a huge troll (of terrible taste) or some guy who is actually needing psychiatric help. Badly so.
Sexism is more insidious. And harder to detect for sure because what is considered acceptable (even expected/polite) flirting in some cultures is seen as assault in others. This is a side effect of men and women relationship having different connotations as men-men or women-women. For obvious reasons.
I suppose a reasonable code of conduct is about clearly separating "work" -- in the case of OSS the technical contributions and the value thereof, and "play" -- the interactions you may have with other humans for the sake of friendship/seduction. And that goes both ways: you should not get easily offended (after all the internet is full of hormone-filled education-deficient adolescents, and being sensitive is a recipe for unhappiness), but you should strive for not -- ever -- putting in a single posting/mail/RL discussion both "work" and "play".
Marks of technical appreciation are of course OK.
And yes, try to be culturally sensitive. This means that you should expect people to get offended by innocent/friendly remarks. Apologise and don't do it again, this is not an attack on you and your culture (most of the time;) ). Again, this goes both ways: pointing out you found such and such remark disturbing is fine, and helps communication, but let go -- if not a jerk, the offending party will apologise and not do it again.
In the end, I guess what I try to say is "don't be a jerk", tolerate other people's mistakes, and learn from yours. It's a global world and communicating across cultures is hard.
By your reasoning having mass and existing are the same. Ergo photons don't exist either:)
You must have missed the century-old memo which says mass and energy are more than a little bit related...
Particles are just a way of thinking. A more correct way of thinking is seeing everything as a probability density function. A yet more correct way of thinking is seeing things in terms of Lie group symmetries.
Particle vs wave is just a way of showing why both formalisms have problems. This does not mean we have no formalism which account for both behaviours!
Simply the maths involved are not college level.
For example, you speak of EM radiation. EM radiation is not made of "photons moving in a sort of intersecting wave pattern". This is just the picture shown to indicate the magnetic field is always orthogonal to the electric field. These two are forces, and the combined field is *mediated* by photons. This means that the _interactions_ of anything with an EM field are observed by detecting photons.
An electric field is mediated by electrons and the interaction of this field are observed by detecting electrons.
The photons and electron are produced spontaneously from the interactions when they involve a change of energy.
The fields can be understood as the density of probability of the occurrence of a photon/electron *when an interaction occurs*. The field equations resemble strongly wave functions, and the field mediators behave a lot like particles (never mind the fractional spin of an electron...), this is why we have the so-called "duality".
Electrons don't exist as such. They are just manifestations of vibration modes in certain energy fields.
The satellites around a planet view is deeply wrong and flawed. It doesn't account for Young's sleets experiment. It doesn't account for valence.
It is not event consistent with itself: how can you have those electrons orbiting in the same shell and never bumping into each other or crashing into the nucleus?
No, he is right, 40-43% is about right for a turbine. Basically because of the famous principle which says you cannot do better than Carnot. And that is limited by the difference in temperatures (1-Tcold/Thot).
You can have multiple cycles and recycle the heat, too. This increases the efficiency of the plant because the "waste" heat gets used, but the transformation in electricity is still is in the order of 40%.
A car does not however get 40%. No way. 10-15% is more like the actual figure -- 35% perhaps for hybrids which make sure the engine always operates in favourable regimes.
Moral of the story: big powerplants are always going to be better than car engine. From which we must conclude it is a better idea to get electricity from the grid than to burn hydrocarbons in the engines. Because even coal plants are better than cars at that game.
I think the more eyes debate has already run its course...
You framed you comment as "why I left open source for closed source" using a logic which is simply wrong. Logic, again would say that _since_ you know of the hole _and_ it is exploited, you hiding the name of the app helps no one. It also indicates you did not report the thing to the devs, thus breaching the moral contract you have with them. This, however, is purely a matter of what you believe is right, and no one can dictate your behaviour. Just don't hide behind broken logic.
There are little reason to leave open source for closed source, and I believe all of them based on irrational beliefs rather than fact. However, there are many, many, extremely valid reasons to leave a given open source app for its proprietary equivalent. It is useful to everyone that you state which app and why. It helps the devs of the open source app -- if they care -- but also those of the closed source one, because it puts pressure on them, and the open source alternative keeps them honest.
Free market can only function well when information flows...
See, I am not questioning that you should have changed software.
Just that you seem to believe this has anything to do with closed vs open source. Your very argument says that open source is probably a much better choice in the long term due to the fact that holes can (and in many cases are) closed by the users.
Yet you are saying "I had to change a buggy open source product for a perhaps buggy closed source product. This proves open source is no good."
Also, had you wanted to help anyone with your comment, you would have mentioned the product and the nature of the security hole...
Which might be also compromised, except you can't know. So you are really saying that you don't actually care about the security, you just don't want to know...
This is the least convincing argument for dropping an open source tool ever: there is a bug. You can fix it. You don't want to. *So* you go for closed source, which might or might not have the *same* problem, which you *cannot* solve.
Amazing! someone read the article! Indeed, madam/sir, you are right. I did not read the article (wondered about the comments), but I work on concrete -- IAACS (I am a concrete scientist)...
Well, no, but a ton of cement, yes. You cannot do anything about it, because the reaction that transforms the rocks into cement liberates CO2. The little abstract at the to is completely wrong about the fossil fuels: a cement plant will burn anything and is typically doubling as an incinerator. The reason there are masses of CO2 produced is chemical, and unless you give up on cement, you will never reduce that.
In fact, to reduce the emissions, this is exactly what the cement companies do: they replace part of the cement with other materials, such as slag, fly ash rice ash hulk which harden not as fast or only with the product of cement hydration but yield better properties in the long run
Fly ash is actually widely used as a supplementary cementitious material. It has all sorts of excellent properties, it reduces porosity, increases durability mitigates ASR. It is a so-called pouzzolane, which means it reacts with the carbon hydroxide produced by the reaction of the cement and transforms it into calcium-silicate hydrate which is the main responsible for the strength of cement (C-S-H is the main product of the reaction of cement with water)
In fact, we are running out of sources of fly ash to put in cement. So basically, no, there is no risk, or we would have known by now. Also, you have to realise that FA is essentially pure amorphous silica, and that heavy elements would only be there as traces and stay trapped as the FA reacts.
Because he said nothing about font sizes? Font sizes are absolute. They do not depend on the amount of pixels you have. More pixels means sharper fonts, that is all.
Basically what you are saying is that you _are_ using an obsolete OS. If I buy a larger screen, I expect more surface and the same font size, not some bizzarro effect where my fonts become tiny. If I buy a monitor that is the same size but with better resolution, then maybe small font sizes become more legible. But in my experience, they are tiring pretty fast anyway.
In fact I expect my whole interface to scale.
Re:Karma burning for fun and profit
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
You like apt, not deb. deb is as sucky as RPM.
Each time someone gets mixed-up between archive formats and package dependency solver, $PANTHEON kills a kitten.
the tech of KDE3 had reached its limits. It was necessary to re-architecture the whole thing. So they did.
Then of course you need time to rebuild the features. But no one is forced to leave KDE3: it cannot have new features because it coded itself to a corner, but it is not going away.
KDE4 will (already has actually) have more features than 3, because the architecture is so much better. But they will not appear magically, nor instantly. When the devs released 4.0, it said "look, we have this new architecture, it is going to be cool, help us"
And the people whined "we wanted no change! and more features!". And the devs were unhappy. But still that way progress happened. And could not have happened so fast otherwise.
Unfathomably however, people are still ranting more than a year after. About free stuff they are not forced to use, on issues since then resolved. This is utterly mad.
Re:Too little, too late; I'm with Linus
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
But you don't make sense, see. You complain of the lack of features in KDE4 when compared to KDE3, which is a legitimate opinion.
And then you explain that you are really happy with XFCE -- which has less features than either.
you want to update, then, akonadi is much better behaved, now.
When finally all the PIM apps will have been migrated it will be the source of much coolness (at last, contacts really integrated! mail and IM as system services!)
Re:Per-desktop activities assignments
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
I find it amazing you find people which will complain about widgets which are useless because you never see the desktop, and people which will complain about the choice of wallpapers that they will resist change for this sake.
Slashdot Mirror
As light as possible :) there are many different kind of rapes, from consenting sex between teens of the wrong age to a father abusing his five-year-old daughter. Having a single all-encompassing "rape" does disservice to Justice.
I am not saying punishment should be light as a matter of principle, but as light as possible given the ultimate objective which is to minimise crime and maximise the number of functioning citizens (that is the result of actual research).
As it happens, studies show that the swiftness of the judgement and application of the sentence matters more than the sentence itself to prevent repeats.
Now the nature of the sentences does serve as deterrence. But humans are not very good with orders of magnitude, so probably being on the severe side serves no purpose (that is only my opinion, as far as I know).
And how does the crime rate correlate to the severity of sentences? Is it the role of the governments to protect the public, or simply to follow what the mob seems to want, never mind that it is absurd, destructive, dangerous, or sometimes simply evil?
The wish of the people are to be respected, certainly, but what if the people wishes for duels to the death to be legal?
I hold similar beliefs, and to me, the punitive aspects of prison should only be as required to a) be a deterrence, b) serve as a lesson (as in you have to feel punished so you understand what you did is bad) and c) symbolically represent atonement to society. the latter part is really necessary because then the criminal can feel they deserved their punishment and got better from it, but also have the society consider someone who has finished his sentence as a new person.
Unfortunately, too many people feel that legal punishment is a means to avenge the victim. This is cruel, wasteful and essentially inefficient. Demand punishments as light as possible to deter: this will empty prisons, be less costly, and make for a more balanced society.
You mean, how they failed to pass it, unlike what would have been the case in most government ministerial meeting of any country?
This very example shows that checks and balances, and public input do actually matter in the EU much more than elsewhere.
Politicians try to pass crap on behalf of their sponsors all the time -- and usually, they succeed!
Ha, what do you expect, when contributors from Europe are for the most part British europhobes, fed from their tender age by MurdochMedia.
Indeed, what the text says is "a judge can order disconnection, given cause", and this got interpreted as "Big Corporations Have The Right To Arbitrarily Disconnect You, And This Right Was Given To Them By The Evil EU/Big Gvt."
Of course, the second version sells, wayyy better.
In the example you are giving, I believe it is not sexism. It is either a huge troll (of terrible taste) or some guy who is actually needing psychiatric help. Badly so.
Sexism is more insidious. And harder to detect for sure because what is considered acceptable (even expected/polite) flirting in some cultures is seen as assault in others. This is a side effect of men and women relationship having different connotations as men-men or women-women. For obvious reasons.
I suppose a reasonable code of conduct is about clearly separating "work" -- in the case of OSS the technical contributions and the value thereof, and "play" -- the interactions you may have with other humans for the sake of friendship/seduction. And that goes both ways: you should not get easily offended (after all the internet is full of hormone-filled education-deficient adolescents, and being sensitive is a recipe for unhappiness), but you should strive for not -- ever -- putting in a single posting/mail/RL discussion both "work" and "play".
Marks of technical appreciation are of course OK.
And yes, try to be culturally sensitive. This means that you should expect people to get offended by innocent/friendly remarks. Apologise and don't do it again, this is not an attack on you and your culture (most of the time ;) ). Again, this goes both ways: pointing out you found such and such remark disturbing is fine, and helps communication, but let go -- if not a jerk, the offending party will apologise and not do it again.
In the end, I guess what I try to say is "don't be a jerk", tolerate other people's mistakes, and learn from yours. It's a global world and communicating across cultures is hard.
yes.
By your reasoning having mass and existing are the same. Ergo photons don't exist either :)
You must have missed the century-old memo which says mass and energy are more than a little bit related...
Particles are just a way of thinking. A more correct way of thinking is seeing everything as a probability density function. A yet more correct way of thinking is seeing things in terms of Lie group symmetries.
Particle vs wave is just a way of showing why both formalisms have problems. This does not mean we have no formalism which account for both behaviours!
Simply the maths involved are not college level.
For example, you speak of EM radiation. EM radiation is not made of "photons moving in a sort of intersecting wave pattern". This is just the picture shown to indicate the magnetic field is always orthogonal to the electric field. These two are forces, and the combined field is *mediated* by photons. This means that the _interactions_ of anything with an EM field are observed by detecting photons.
An electric field is mediated by electrons and the interaction of this field are observed by detecting electrons.
The photons and electron are produced spontaneously from the interactions when they involve a change of energy.
The fields can be understood as the density of probability of the occurrence of a photon/electron *when an interaction occurs*. The field equations resemble strongly wave functions, and the field mediators behave a lot like particles (never mind the fractional spin of an electron...), this is why we have the so-called "duality".
Electrons don't exist as such. They are just manifestations of vibration modes in certain energy fields.
The satellites around a planet view is deeply wrong and flawed. It doesn't account for Young's sleets experiment. It doesn't account for valence.
It is not event consistent with itself: how can you have those electrons orbiting in the same shell and never bumping into each other or crashing into the nucleus?
No, he is right, 40-43% is about right for a turbine. Basically because of the famous principle which says you cannot do better than Carnot. And that is limited by the difference in temperatures (1-Tcold/Thot).
You can have multiple cycles and recycle the heat, too. This increases the efficiency of the plant because the "waste" heat gets used, but the transformation in electricity is still is in the order of 40%.
A car does not however get 40%. No way. 10-15% is more like the actual figure -- 35% perhaps for hybrids which make sure the engine always operates in favourable regimes.
Moral of the story: big powerplants are always going to be better than car engine. From which we must conclude it is a better idea to get electricity from the grid than to burn hydrocarbons in the engines. Because even coal plants are better than cars at that game.
I think the more eyes debate has already run its course...
You framed you comment as "why I left open source for closed source" using a logic which is simply wrong. Logic, again would say that _since_ you know of the hole _and_ it is exploited, you hiding the name of the app helps no one. It also indicates you did not report the thing to the devs, thus breaching the moral contract you have with them. This, however, is purely a matter of what you believe is right, and no one can dictate your behaviour. Just don't hide behind broken logic.
There are little reason to leave open source for closed source, and I believe all of them based on irrational beliefs rather than fact. However, there are many, many, extremely valid reasons to leave a given open source app for its proprietary equivalent. It is useful to everyone that you state which app and why. It helps the devs of the open source app -- if they care -- but also those of the closed source one, because it puts pressure on them, and the open source alternative keeps them honest.
Free market can only function well when information flows...
See, I am not questioning that you should have changed software.
Just that you seem to believe this has anything to do with closed vs open source. Your very argument says that open source is probably a much better choice in the long term due to the fact that holes can (and in many cases are) closed by the users.
Yet you are saying "I had to change a buggy open source product for a perhaps buggy closed source product. This proves open source is no good."
Also, had you wanted to help anyone with your comment, you would have mentioned the product and the nature of the security hole...
Which might be also compromised, except you can't know. So you are really saying that you don't actually care about the security, you just don't want to know...
This is the least convincing argument for dropping an open source tool ever: there is a bug. You can fix it. You don't want to. *So* you go for closed source, which might or might not have the *same* problem, which you *cannot* solve.
Sir, I admire your amazing logic.
Amazing! someone read the article! Indeed, madam/sir, you are right. I did not read the article (wondered about the comments), but I work on concrete -- IAACS (I am a concrete scientist)...
Well, no, but a ton of cement, yes. You cannot do anything about it, because the reaction that transforms the rocks into cement liberates CO2. The little abstract at the to is completely wrong about the fossil fuels: a cement plant will burn anything and is typically doubling as an incinerator. The reason there are masses of CO2 produced is chemical, and unless you give up on cement, you will never reduce that.
In fact, to reduce the emissions, this is exactly what the cement companies do: they replace part of the cement with other materials, such as slag, fly ash rice ash hulk which harden not as fast or only with the product of cement hydration but yield better properties in the long run
Fly ash is actually widely used as a supplementary cementitious material. It has all sorts of excellent properties, it reduces porosity, increases durability mitigates ASR. It is a so-called pouzzolane, which means it reacts with the carbon hydroxide produced by the reaction of the cement and transforms it into calcium-silicate hydrate which is the main responsible for the strength of cement (C-S-H is the main product of the reaction of cement with water)
In fact, we are running out of sources of fly ash to put in cement. So basically, no, there is no risk, or we would have known by now. Also, you have to realise that FA is essentially pure amorphous silica, and that heavy elements would only be there as traces and stay trapped as the FA reacts.
Because he said nothing about font sizes? Font sizes are absolute. They do not depend on the amount of pixels you have. More pixels means sharper fonts, that is all.
Basically what you are saying is that you _are_ using an obsolete OS. If I buy a larger screen, I expect more surface and the same font size, not some bizzarro effect where my fonts become tiny. If I buy a monitor that is the same size but with better resolution, then maybe small font sizes become more legible. But in my experience, they are tiring pretty fast anyway.
In fact I expect my whole interface to scale.
You like apt, not deb. deb is as sucky as RPM.
Each time someone gets mixed-up between archive formats and package dependency solver, $PANTHEON kills a kitten.
the tech of KDE3 had reached its limits. It was necessary to re-architecture the whole thing. So they did.
Then of course you need time to rebuild the features. But no one is forced to leave KDE3: it cannot have new features because it coded itself to a corner, but it is not going away.
KDE4 will (already has actually) have more features than 3, because the architecture is so much better. But they will not appear magically, nor instantly. When the devs released 4.0, it said "look, we have this new architecture, it is going to be cool, help us"
And the people whined "we wanted no change! and more features!". And the devs were unhappy. But still that way progress happened. And could not have happened so fast otherwise.
Unfathomably however, people are still ranting more than a year after. About free stuff they are not forced to use, on issues since then resolved. This is utterly mad.
But you don't make sense, see. You complain of the lack of features in KDE4 when compared to KDE3, which is a legitimate opinion.
And then you explain that you are really happy with XFCE -- which has less features than either.
Uh?
Your excuses would have more weight if there was no preview functionality.
Of course XFCE does not even have a regexp editor. But don't let reality get into the way of your little rant.
You need to meet Mr paragraph. A neat device to separate your long rambling posts into manageable chunks.
you want to update, then, akonadi is much better behaved, now.
When finally all the PIM apps will have been migrated it will be the source of much coolness (at last, contacts really integrated! mail and IM as system services!)
I find it amazing you find people which will complain about widgets which are useless because you never see the desktop, and people which will complain about the choice of wallpapers that they will resist change for this sake.
Obviously one of the two groups is wrong :)