When you make your customers leave, you don't get money, and you die.
Facebook is aware of this, but does not wish to change its behavior. That is why it is smearing pablum all over this issue, and trying to kiss and make up, cheater style. (Cause they really love you. Honest.)
Silly, silly anonymous coward, believing that the political correctness madness does not originate in the liberal left, along with silly ideas about how being rude is always wrong, and nobody should get their feelings hurt ever.
The sad truth is that both sides really just love hearing themselves talk, and hate hearing what the other is saying, to the point that both sides really are totally down with censorship and echochambers.
In which case, the appropriate action for Facebook to take is to have a human review the image once the poster disputes the takedown, and to act sensibly, rationally, and in a Kong authoritarian manner.
You know, NOT telling the journalist that the image is infringing without any room to contest. NOT taking down not only the journalist's open letter about the improper takedown, and NOT deleting the PRIME MINISTER'S post about it, while pretending that doing those things is all hunky dory.
You know, NOT the way Facebook chose to handle this, and now is trying hard to soon its way out of being caught red handed doing, and publicly shamed for.
"No child nudity" is the authoritarians "easy" solution, that results in a morbid distortion that ultimately lacks the reasoning for the prohibition in the first place.
Do I really need to go here, or are you just being willfully silly?
In the off chance that you are serious:
We choose not to give complicit support for actions that cause greivious harm to children. An alarming amount of child nudity in photography is for the purpose of purile "entertainment" of adults at the expense of the children imaged, often involving physical and sexual abuse of these children. We call this kind of image "child pornography", and rightly desire not to encourage it, and instead to actively discourage it.
The decision to remove all images of nude children is one of pure convenience in the face of objections about child porn being " art.". (Real porn featuring children being declared art to resist its removal, diluting actual art.) When you don't display the image at all, authoritarian style that problem just goes away.
Instead of being sensible, and asking a few reasonable questions about the image under scrutiny, like:
Did the photographer harm, or promote the harm of, the child pictured?
Is this image of a decidedly sexual nature, or intended to cause sexual excitation?
Will the circulation of this image likely result in the harm of additional children?
Etc--
You instead opt to be lazy, and just forbid all images.
There are consequences to taking the quick, easy, and lazy route. You might consider reading the philosophical treatise by Baudrillard concerning this matter. He proposes that human abstractions for ideas supplant the original concepts, and that this process continues, resulting in a final form that lacks all resemblance of the original, even denying the very concept of an original. (Progression of simulacra). By banning all pictures of naked children in order to combat the proliferation of child porn, you ultimately redefine what child porn is, and that process continues until the concept of child porn that comes to be has no resemblance whatsoever to the original one through which the practice was instituted in the first place. Eg, now "child porn" is any picture of a child in any state of undress, regardless of content or context. The emphasis is no longer to prevent the harm of children, the emphasis is the censorship itself, and the taboo of violating the censorship.
In the case of this image of Kim phuc, the girl was harmed: she was just moments earlier, literally on fire that cannot be easily extinguished (by design!), and ripped her own burning clothes off to save herself, while running from the burning remains of her home village-- destroyed for its strategic location in combating the Viet Kong.
Is the image likely to cause harm to other children? No. This image was taken to draw attention to the harm being done, to prevent further harm. It is 180degrees off from being supportive of child harm.
Is the image of a sexual nature? No. The image is of a terrified girl desperate to save herself as her world literally burns around her. There is no context for sex in this image at all.
Is this image intended to cause sexual excitation? No. The intent of the image is to cause disgust and horror.
Very easy to determine that this is not child porn, when you don't become intellectually lazy and allow the basic concepts underpinning the basis of why we censor sexually explicit images of children to become mutated abstractions with no basis in reality.
Sadly that is probably true. I am no SJW (I tend to not get invited to those kinds of parties, since I tend to be crassly expressive about grim realities, and party poop their get togethers when I AM invited) but from what I have experienced of them, they react before thinking or reading.
The nature and historical meaning of the photo could have been right there in 72pt font in the headline above the image, and all they would have seen is naked girl running, and they would have gone into emotional bullshit mode instantly. Seen it more than once. One of the reasons I hate the zero tolerance mindset.
Seriously-- You got caught red handed being censorship loving fuckwits who refuse to accept community feedback on policy decisions, naturally, you got your asses handed to you over it, and now you want to cuddle back into good graces so you can once again start dishing out your authoritarian horseshit once this blows over.
Fuck you.
(and for the people with the usual "Their service, their rules!" attitudes, fuck you idiots too. Facebook has maneuvered itself as a major gatekeeper between the press and their readers. That is what caused this whole censorship issue to explode like this in the first place. Once you start acting like a monopoly, or at least the major stake holder for a necessary position for society, you stop being allowed to have authoritarian control, and need to be more civically minded.)
While it is probably trivial for the developer to add an inexpensive way to trip achievement activations based on time the game is running, that would produce a predictable pattern of achievement activations, which can be detected and enforced against.
I suppose a better way to deal with the problem is to throw out reviews that are tied to a clearly inactive steam account.
A person who actually uses steam will have recorded play histories and times. A bullshit ratings inflation service will have hundreds of dummy accounts that they use to inflate ratings with, and little to nothing else. If those accounts need actual play history, especially recent play history (given valve's stated goals with this to capture changing ratings over time), then the cost of these ratings inflation services will balloon.
1) exposed the fact Eric holder lied to congress multiple times concerning domestic intelligence and broad data collection against us citizens accused of no crimes. (Purgery is a crime)
2) irrefutably exposed that the NSA performs illegal wiretapping on a routine, standard operating policy basis. (Illegal search is a high crime, specifically denounced in the constitution.)
3) irrefutably exposed that the NSA shares data on foreign persons collected in bulk in exchange for bulk data on american citizens, again, for people who are not accused of any crime, or part of any investigation. (Some of these countries are not on diplomatically friendly terms, making this very close to genuine treason.)
But of course, the guy who calls attention to the elephant in the room is the bad guy.
This comes from bad electrolyte or bad quality control in the battery's construction.
One of the following is happening:
1) the cathode of the battery is fraying apart too quickly. (LiON batteries have cathodes that shrink and swell under charge and discharge, as they need to have a very high permeability to ionic lithium salts in solution. The actual absorption of the electrolyte during charging splits the cathode apart slowly over time. That's why the batteries wear out. In this case, the cathode is prematurely disintegrating, and the frayed out bits are shorting with the annode.)
2) the electrolyte inside the pack is of poor quality/improper. Instead of just migrating into the porous cathode during charging, it is breaking down, and depositing metallic lithium dendrites inside the cathode. These can cause short circuits, much like tin whiskers do.
3) the charge logic is improper, causing either breakdown of the electrolyte, or causing premature cathode disintegration through overcharging.
in all cases, the fire happens after a dead short with the annode occurs inside the battery.
Normally, the charge controller uses a thermistor to tell if thr cell is charging properly or not.if it is not charging properly, it disables the cell to prevent electrolyte and cathode breakdown, and the subsequent fire these cause.
in the endless madness for thinner and thinner batteries, it is possible that thermally assisted detection of bad charging is less effective, because of the high surface area to weight ratio of the thiner battery cells. (they radiate the heat too quickly because they are thin and flat, so the thermistor reading isnt as accurate.)
The 50k cap is used as the floating tank for the resonant coil circuit. The voltage gain is a product of the difference in the number of coil windings between the driver coil and the discharge coil.
The interaction between the driver coil and the discharge coil is from electromagnetism. They do not need to be in the same gaseous medium. A many walled setup, with one SF6 filled tube containing the cap, the discharge coil, and a third tank circuit to measure when the discharge coil is full to bridge it to the mains, sitting inside another glass vial filled with SF6 containing the driver coil, with the inputs and outputs at opposite ends, should be able to reach 2mv peak discharge for a millisecond or so.
It can only self discharge when there is a bridge between the driver and discharge coils.
a typical outlet has plastic between the conductors. this thing is not charged prior to outlet insertion. the wire has significantly less resistance than the air anyway.
also, again, glass vial enclosure full of sulfur hexafluride. it does not conduct electricity, a least not in the ranges being discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is a last resort, nitwit. Ideally, the agent never gets caught, and thus never uses the scary red thumbdrive.
The typical SOP is that the agency disavows any knowledge of the agent. The agent knows they are expendable. They use the device nuker to destroy any evidence of their affiliation, and only as a last resort before capture. They cannot be tortured into revealing a decryption key if nothing to decrypt exists.
having many rooms on a single power drop from the breaker, jackass. you can cripple many systems by exploiting cheap assedness in planning of the power infrastructure. wont work on a proper data center, but will easily kill whole cube farms for days.
insulation of that kind is easy. sealed glass vial filled with sufur hexafluoride gas.
megavolt voltages are easily obtained with 19th century wiring designs. we have much better conductors and material now. they make supercaps that can handle that kind of load, and can fit in that form factor. if you want a brand name, apowercap comes to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes ac, exactly like that, because this:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Totally never happened, and any post that might have been deleted was certainly not really from the prime minister of Norway.
Obviously.
(Idiot.)
Does law of the jungle count?
When you make your customers leave, you don't get money, and you die.
Facebook is aware of this, but does not wish to change its behavior. That is why it is smearing pablum all over this issue, and trying to kiss and make up, cheater style. (Cause they really love you. Honest.)
Silly, silly anonymous coward, believing that the political correctness madness does not originate in the liberal left, along with silly ideas about how being rude is always wrong, and nobody should get their feelings hurt ever.
The sad truth is that both sides really just love hearing themselves talk, and hate hearing what the other is saying, to the point that both sides really are totally down with censorship and echochambers.
In which case, the appropriate action for Facebook to take is to have a human review the image once the poster disputes the takedown, and to act sensibly, rationally, and in a Kong authoritarian manner.
You know, NOT telling the journalist that the image is infringing without any room to contest. NOT taking down not only the journalist's open letter about the improper takedown, and NOT deleting the PRIME MINISTER'S post about it, while pretending that doing those things is all hunky dory.
You know, NOT the way Facebook chose to handle this, and now is trying hard to soon its way out of being caught red handed doing, and publicly shamed for.
Bingo.
"No child nudity" is the authoritarians "easy" solution, that results in a morbid distortion that ultimately lacks the reasoning for the prohibition in the first place.
Do I really need to go here, or are you just being willfully silly?
In the off chance that you are serious:
We choose not to give complicit support for actions that cause greivious harm to children. An alarming amount of child nudity in photography is for the purpose of purile "entertainment" of adults at the expense of the children imaged, often involving physical and sexual abuse of these children. We call this kind of image "child pornography", and rightly desire not to encourage it, and instead to actively discourage it.
The decision to remove all images of nude children is one of pure convenience in the face of objections about child porn being " art.". (Real porn featuring children being declared art to resist its removal, diluting actual art.) When you don't display the image at all, authoritarian style that problem just goes away.
Instead of being sensible, and asking a few reasonable questions about the image under scrutiny, like:
Did the photographer harm, or promote the harm of, the child pictured?
Is this image of a decidedly sexual nature, or intended to cause sexual excitation?
Will the circulation of this image likely result in the harm of additional children?
Etc--
You instead opt to be lazy, and just forbid all images.
There are consequences to taking the quick, easy, and lazy route. You might consider reading the philosophical treatise by Baudrillard concerning this matter. He proposes that human abstractions for ideas supplant the original concepts, and that this process continues, resulting in a final form that lacks all resemblance of the original, even denying the very concept of an original. (Progression of simulacra). By banning all pictures of naked children in order to combat the proliferation of child porn, you ultimately redefine what child porn is, and that process continues until the concept of child porn that comes to be has no resemblance whatsoever to the original one through which the practice was instituted in the first place. Eg, now "child porn" is any picture of a child in any state of undress, regardless of content or context. The emphasis is no longer to prevent the harm of children, the emphasis is the censorship itself, and the taboo of violating the censorship.
In the case of this image of Kim phuc, the girl was harmed: she was just moments earlier, literally on fire that cannot be easily extinguished (by design!), and ripped her own burning clothes off to save herself, while running from the burning remains of her home village-- destroyed for its strategic location in combating the Viet Kong.
Is the image likely to cause harm to other children?
No. This image was taken to draw attention to the harm being done, to prevent further harm. It is 180degrees off from being supportive of child harm.
Is the image of a sexual nature?
No. The image is of a terrified girl desperate to save herself as her world literally burns around her. There is no context for sex in this image at all.
Is this image intended to cause sexual excitation?
No. The intent of the image is to cause disgust and horror.
Very easy to determine that this is not child porn, when you don't become intellectually lazy and allow the basic concepts underpinning the basis of why we censor sexually explicit images of children to become mutated abstractions with no basis in reality.
A situation that Facebook, in its majority stakeholder position, does precisely nothing to correct, and instead gives complicit support for.
I definitely will blame them for that.
There is a problem with your argument:
The censorship did not stop at just the image. A public open letter to Facebook about this issue by a freaking prime minister was deleted.
Censorship. The real deal.
Sadly that is probably true. I am no SJW (I tend to not get invited to those kinds of parties, since I tend to be crassly expressive about grim realities, and party poop their get togethers when I AM invited) but from what I have experienced of them, they react before thinking or reading.
The nature and historical meaning of the photo could have been right there in 72pt font in the headline above the image, and all they would have seen is naked girl running, and they would have gone into emotional bullshit mode instantly. Seen it more than once. One of the reasons I hate the zero tolerance mindset.
Seriously-- You got caught red handed being censorship loving fuckwits who refuse to accept community feedback on policy decisions, naturally, you got your asses handed to you over it, and now you want to cuddle back into good graces so you can once again start dishing out your authoritarian horseshit once this blows over.
Fuck you.
(and for the people with the usual "Their service, their rules!" attitudes, fuck you idiots too. Facebook has maneuvered itself as a major gatekeeper between the press and their readers. That is what caused this whole censorship issue to explode like this in the first place. Once you start acting like a monopoly, or at least the major stake holder for a necessary position for society, you stop being allowed to have authoritarian control, and need to be more civically minded.)
Amusingly, that DOES seem to be the direction Apple is taking.
Removing features left and right, and using older hardware under the plastic shine.
Eventually the iDevices will be just a rounded glass rectangle with icons painted on.
Steam monitors achievements as well.
While it is probably trivial for the developer to add an inexpensive way to trip achievement activations based on time the game is running, that would produce a predictable pattern of achievement activations, which can be detected and enforced against.
one of my initial thoughts as well.
I suppose a better way to deal with the problem is to throw out reviews that are tied to a clearly inactive steam account.
A person who actually uses steam will have recorded play histories and times. A bullshit ratings inflation service will have hundreds of dummy accounts that they use to inflate ratings with, and little to nothing else. If those accounts need actual play history, especially recent play history (given valve's stated goals with this to capture changing ratings over time), then the cost of these ratings inflation services will balloon.
Yes.
1) exposed the fact Eric holder lied to congress multiple times concerning domestic intelligence and broad data collection against us citizens accused of no crimes. (Purgery is a crime)
2) irrefutably exposed that the NSA performs illegal wiretapping on a routine, standard operating policy basis. (Illegal search is a high crime, specifically denounced in the constitution.)
3) irrefutably exposed that the NSA shares data on foreign persons collected in bulk in exchange for bulk data on american citizens, again, for people who are not accused of any crime, or part of any investigation. (Some of these countries are not on diplomatically friendly terms, making this very close to genuine treason.)
But of course, the guy who calls attention to the elephant in the room is the bad guy.
This comes from bad electrolyte or bad quality control in the battery's construction.
One of the following is happening:
1) the cathode of the battery is fraying apart too quickly. (LiON batteries have cathodes that shrink and swell under charge and discharge, as they need to have a very high permeability to ionic lithium salts in solution. The actual absorption of the electrolyte during charging splits the cathode apart slowly over time. That's why the batteries wear out. In this case, the cathode is prematurely disintegrating, and the frayed out bits are shorting with the annode.)
2) the electrolyte inside the pack is of poor quality/improper. Instead of just migrating into the porous cathode during charging, it is breaking down, and depositing metallic lithium dendrites inside the cathode. These can cause short circuits, much like tin whiskers do.
3) the charge logic is improper, causing either breakdown of the electrolyte, or causing premature cathode disintegration through overcharging.
in all cases, the fire happens after a dead short with the annode occurs inside the battery.
Normally, the charge controller uses a thermistor to tell if thr cell is charging properly or not.if it is not charging properly, it disables the cell to prevent electrolyte and cathode breakdown, and the subsequent fire these cause.
in the endless madness for thinner and thinner batteries, it is possible that thermally assisted detection of bad charging is less effective, because of the high surface area to weight ratio of the thiner battery cells. (they radiate the heat too quickly because they are thin and flat, so the thermistor reading isnt as accurate.)
The 50k cap is used as the floating tank for the resonant coil circuit. The voltage gain is a product of the difference in the number of coil windings between the driver coil and the discharge coil.
The interaction between the driver coil and the discharge coil is from electromagnetism. They do not need to be in the same gaseous medium. A many walled setup, with one SF6 filled tube containing the cap, the discharge coil, and a third tank circuit to measure when the discharge coil is full to bridge it to the mains, sitting inside another glass vial filled with SF6 containing the driver coil, with the inputs and outputs at opposite ends, should be able to reach 2mv peak discharge for a millisecond or so.
It can only self discharge when there is a bridge between the driver and discharge coils.
you only want to down the little kiosk the lady taking your boarding passes is using.
i very much doubt that it is on its own breaker.
a typical outlet has plastic between the conductors. this thing is not charged prior to outlet insertion. the wire has significantly less resistance than the air anyway.
apowercap just came to mind. if you want small, high voltage caps, try tdk.
http://www.digikey.com/en/prod...
also, again, glass vial enclosure full of sulfur hexafluride. it does not conduct electricity, a least not in the ranges being discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is a last resort, nitwit. Ideally, the agent never gets caught, and thus never uses the scary red thumbdrive.
The typical SOP is that the agency disavows any knowledge of the agent. The agent knows they are expendable. They use the device nuker to destroy any evidence of their affiliation, and only as a last resort before capture. They cannot be tortured into revealing a decryption key if nothing to decrypt exists.
wallwarts can be surprisingly large.
imagine something the size of a laptop power brick, if that makes you feel better.
you dont plug a wallwart into a usb port, idiot. troll elsewhere.
one nation's agent provocatur is another 's international terrorist.
perspective. get one.
You work for the CIA instead.
having many rooms on a single power drop from the breaker, jackass. you can cripple many systems by exploiting cheap assedness in planning of the power infrastructure. wont work on a proper data center, but will easily kill whole cube farms for days.
insulation of that kind is easy. sealed glass vial filled with sufur hexafluoride gas.
megavolt voltages are easily obtained with 19th century wiring designs. we have much better conductors and material now. they make supercaps that can handle that kind of load, and can fit in that form factor. if you want a brand name, apowercap comes to mind.