To be fair, not all Republicans believe that way. Not even all Republican politicians. But it may well be true that all successful Republican politicians believe that way.
You didn't read it carefully enough. There are many places where "god" commands that their neighbors be destroyed or enslaved because they don't behave exactly the way the current spokesman for God thinks they should.
If you'd said Special Relativity, I might have agreed with you, but I believe that General Relativity is on a less sound footing than is QED.
That said, both have been tested in enough places, that it will be quite difficult for any theory to replace them. But one is definitely needed, or SOME such, because they keep making predictions (that are quite hard to check) where they contradict each other. But I can't think of any prediction where they were in contradiction where it was possible for us to check and see which was correct. This "Great Firewall" is a good example. How do you look to check who was right? Or is the best answer to just redifine what a Black Hole is so that the contradiction disappears? (Hawking seems to think he can do that.)
Perhaps it's another version of the principle of complementarity. The two theories don't predict the same things, but they can never come into actual conflict, because no observation of such is possible.
Well...you can renormalize the equations so that the time dimension is flat. But that makes the spacial positions a lot more difficult to calculate.
Personally, I think that gravity is an affect of a combination of time dilation and the uncertainty principle. This is a bit hard to visualize, and I couldn't begin to write down the equations, but I think it's because where time is moving more slowly, if a particle is there, it stays there longer than it would where the time is moving slightly faster. The particle is unitary, but diffuse, so part of it is higher in the field than the rest of it. That part will change it's probability of being there faster than will the part that's in the denser (i.e., slower) part of the field, so it will change its proable position more rapidly, but it will be constrained to maintain it's distance from the part that is slower, and given the 3-d nature of space (when separated from time) it will tend to end up in a slower part of the field. Note that this is all probabilistic, and is modeling particles as if they were pieces of sponge rubber. Not too accurate. To really do this you need to be calculating the probability of detecting a particle at position p1 at time t1 if it started at p0 at t0, but this won't work, because I'm considering different parts of the "probability of detection" as being modified by the rate of flow of time at their location.
YARGH!! The math is WAY over my head. And I may be wrong. But it gets rid of gravity as anything separate from the bending of space by mass. Of course, if gravitons are ever detected, that probably means this theory is dead. Unless, of course, they are sort of like gluons (Have gluons been detected? Can they be detected?) in being the thing that causes space to warp.
No! No! No! We have done VERY few experiments at geostationary orbit. It's very hard to get to, and the signal lag is noticiable, so it's only useful for one-way links.
The experiments were done at Near Earth Orbit. The GPS systems *could* be in geostationary orbit, but that would be both the broadcast and receiver would need to be more powerful. Nobody made that choice, because it's stupid (in this decade, or last decade, and probably next decade). For that to be a good choice you need to have extremely sensitive receivers (compared to those we have today) and powerful broadcast signals (compared to those we use today). Not something I feel comfortable in predicting. And if you had all the necessaries, geostationary orbits are already getting crowded. So the savings in the number of sattelites used wouldn't pay for the choice of orbit.
Note that media channels have a very different set of tradeoffs, and for them it makes sense. But even then direct to end-user isn't popular. The ground stations are too large and expensive. It might make sense for a small town, or a large trailer park Perhaps for a really large apartment house. But why wouldn't the apartment house or the trailer park already have cable?
The question I have is "Why do they assume that it's simple, and doesn't interact with itself?" Actually, since we're talking about, say, 9/10 of the matter in the universe, why don't we assume that there are 9 non-interacting kinds of dark matter, and that each of those kinds is as diverse as what we think of as normal matter?
Please note, I realize that this isn't in the standard model, but searches based on the standard model haven't been notably successful, so I don't see any reason to believe that it applies.
I know that they think they're applying Occam's Razor, but that's only looking at it in one direction. From another direction since we rarely encounter anything that's homogeneous, to assume that something you can't really see is homogeneous appears to be a violation of Occam's Razor (though, admittedly, not as much a violation as would the assumption of any partiuclar variation). But every time that I can recall when we've assumed that the things we don't really understand are simple and unitary, we've been wrong.
I believe that's the chance of any particular pair being in collision. The chance of some pair being in collision would be appreciably larger. And you left out the number of bins in the hash. Even if the raw md5sum would be different, when you change it into a bin number it will be quite a bit smaller...though this can be handled by chaining, etc.
But, yest, it is critically dependent on the number of files to be examined. If he's managing a large library of images, and they are valuable, then he might want to avoid this approach. If he's managing his own photos, there's probably no problem. However, unless I'm misunderstanding Exif documentation (likely) that would allow him to properly compare images at different resolutions and in different formats, where md5sum wouldn't.
The interesting thing is that recent archaeological investigations have tended to show that cancer and heart disease (what you cal "lifestyle diseases") were equally common in ancient egypt and (to the extent it's determinable, small sample, poor evidence) among paleolithic hunter-gatherers.
The evidence isn't conclusive yet, but then neither is the evidence that they actually *are* lifestyle diseases. Remember when everyone was convinced that uncers where a disease caused by stress among middle managers? The evidence needed to convince people is a lot more meager than the evidence needed to actually establish causation.
I don't know if you've heard, but there's a condominium complex in, I think it was, Texas that decided to go after dog owners who didn't clean up after their dogs. So they genetically sequence each dog, and each turd that is left. And then they send the bill to the owner of the dog.
Perhaps you had better reconsider your planned activities.
Got some problems here. Yes, there are problems that need to be addressed that are social problems more than individual problems. There are also problems that need to be addressed that are more individual than social. And the two sets of problems are tightly intertwined. But ANY either/or "solution" is not a solution.
E.g., marriage. Did you ever read/see "My Fair Lady"? Consider the morality of Eliza's father. She was out of wedlock. He knew of her, and didn't feel obliged to support her. (More the converse, actually.) Now realize that this is a romanticized version of Shaw's Pygmalion, and that Shaw, himself, was not poor. But he knew his population. The poor, because of their economic incentives, diidn't take things like marriage seriously. The middle class did. So when Professor 'iggins arranged for Eliza's father to become relatively prosperous, he ended up getting married to Eliza's mother.
Well, fiction is not life. It's a simplified image of life. And many considered Shaw to be "too brutally frank". So I think we can be sure that he made things look better than they really were. But he also didn't lie about what he saw as the nature of morality. (This frequently got people quite upset with him.)
Now when we look at the modern US we see similar social customs. (Well, we need to mix in "Mack the Knife" to get an accurate image. Different authors show different aspects of their current social scene.) But when we see the same patterns popping up again, we are justified in assuming that there is something systematic going on. Blaming individuals won't solve that. But some people will succeed despite the environment. This is probably due to more luck than they will admit, but also due in part to their nature.
Additionally, "As the twig is bent..." has an unfortunate amount of truth to it. Solving the social problems won't immediately cure the individuals who have been warped by the existing system. Indeed, epigenetics suggests that there may be some physical damage that persists for several generations. (I think three is the largest that has been shown experimentally.) And the social equivalent of that is that children who are raised by parents who have been warped tend to acquire a warped personality in turn. Again, this has been shown to disipate over generations, but THIS problem can significantly diminish over just a few years. So it persists, but the level at which it persists can become low enough that it stops being a major impediment to others.
Please note that I have not recommended any particular means of solving the problem. I haven't been convinced by any proposal I've heard. Certainly not by any "anonomous coward" who claims to have escaped from the mess. Even if I had a real reason to believe that he is who he says, I would probably consider him mainly (though not entirely) someone who was extremely fortunate.
You can't really depend on hashed to not put different keys into the same bin. Given md5sum, or some such, collisions won't be frequent, but they will happen.
This may not matter. What's the cost of missing an image or two? If it's not large, then the small probability of a collision may be good enough.
Exif is based on metadata, so the probability of an improper collision is probably less than for, say, md5sum. It's also mor e likely to recognize slightly different images as being the same. This is probably why he was suggesting comparing on Exif. (IIUC, using Exif you can even standardize and only compare on thumbnails of the image, which would standardize the image for different sizes, and allow jpg's to be compared against, say, tiff's...but this is WAY out of my depth, and is based on a superficial reading of so documentation.)
I'm not certain the US qualifies as a republic, either. I will, however, admit that it's closer to a republic than to a democracy. Republic
That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.
The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.
Not really, though there is a spread in that direction. However historically religiously connected advocation of bettering the common good has been acceptable. Even when without the religious connection it would be labelled socialist. Or even Socialist.
Perhaps some small town should get their church to install community Wi-Fi to "spread the word". That would be the test.
Whether you think it's stupid or not depends on what you think their purposes were. I would have accepted "sleazy" or "manipulative" as appropriate, but I don't really think it was "stupid".
I'm not a real fan of deterrence. It doesn't usually seem to work very well, and it tends to degrade the rest of society. But those in power when convicted should be imprisoned in the same conditions into which they shoved others. That way, if they think they have a chance of being convicted, they may act ahead of time to improve those conditions.
And I am a strong believers that those who make the laws should be MORE bound to obey them than are those who merely have the laws imposed upon them. Unfortunately, having the power they generally prefer to make sure that their punishment will be minor if they happen to be caught. But that doesn't have anything to do with should.
I hope this answers your statement, but I'll admit that I didn't really understand it, and had no interest in following the links you provided.
I started work before the internet was accessible outside academia and the gov. I never had occasion to dig into its management. And there's a good chance I won't remember this discussion in 5 years, because internet domain management is WAY out of my area of interest.
So I've likely encountered this being discussed before, and not remembered.
And THAT means that the gggp had a reasonable argument. (I.e., that the guy receiving the statement from Network Solutions should go to another registrar.) If he'd originally said "move his url to a different registrar" then this would never have come up, but, like most of you, he appeared to consider that obvious.
Well, not quite...but close. I know small pieces of it, and I've done static HTML pages, but I'm from a background where Fortran was the main language. These days I generally use Python, because I'm acceppting the performance hit, and because none of the other languages that I've tried make doing everything I'm attempting easy. But I still don't do web scripting or domain management. I might write a TCP server, but it would be intended for use over UNIX sockets (i.e., files).
When I started programming professionally, around 1970, not only were mainframes the only choice, but we didn't even have an in-house terminal. Things have changed a bit since then, and I sure don't know all the details about all the changes. In particular I wasn't certain that a registrar didn't own the names they registered. (Try moving an e-mail address. They won't even forward it for you. I thought this might be something similar.)
Get a clue to how your mind works: ANYTHING you pay a lot of attention to over a reasonable period of time will start showing up in your dreams. ANYTHING. If you have a strong emotional reaction, of any sort, that just strengthens it, but I've had times when I dreamed about spreadsheets, which was difficult, because they weren't spreadsheets about anything in particular, but just spreadsheets as in numbers (illegible, uninterpreted) laid out in a grid.
If you want a really wierd experience, read James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" for a few weeks. Study it, and try to figure out what it means. Then watch your dreams. (Maybe James Joyce's dreams were usually like that, but mine sure weren't.)
Actually, yes. Originally Heroin was marked as an addicition free morphine derivative. Well, the 25 (I think it was) people they tested it on didn't get addicted....
Since everyone else is ignoring it, I'll mention the laws written by corporate legal departments and passed to their tame legislators to introduce without anyone outside the corporations legal staff bothering to read them.
I don't claim the majority of the laws happen that way, but many of the very worst have. Including some that didn't pass, but had to be fought, draining time and energy away from useful activities.
OTOH, there do exist decent lawyers. There even exist several that are worthy of praise. But WRT a large number of them, society would be improved by their disbarment. And the fact that they AREN'T disbarred, is proof that the legal profession is largely composed of criminals. (Anyone who would argue that payment of money to a legislator to pass a law isn't bribery merits disbarment...if not worse. Any legislator who accepts such money deserves 20 years in federal prison...and not a "gentleman's club", either.
And if he goes to another registrar, can he take is name with him? Sorry. but it's not clear to me that he can. If he can, then your argument makes sense.
Your argument could make sense if you actually believe that the existing laws are all enforced equally on all members of society.
OTOH, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
-- Anatole France
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, not all Republicans believe that way. Not even all Republican politicians. But it may well be true that all successful Republican politicians believe that way.
You didn't read it carefully enough. There are many places where "god" commands that their neighbors be destroyed or enslaved because they don't behave exactly the way the current spokesman for God thinks they should.
If you'd said Special Relativity, I might have agreed with you, but I believe that General Relativity is on a less sound footing than is QED.
That said, both have been tested in enough places, that it will be quite difficult for any theory to replace them. But one is definitely needed, or SOME such, because they keep making predictions (that are quite hard to check) where they contradict each other. But I can't think of any prediction where they were in contradiction where it was possible for us to check and see which was correct. This "Great Firewall" is a good example. How do you look to check who was right? Or is the best answer to just redifine what a Black Hole is so that the contradiction disappears? (Hawking seems to think he can do that.)
Perhaps it's another version of the principle of complementarity. The two theories don't predict the same things, but they can never come into actual conflict, because no observation of such is possible.
Well...you can renormalize the equations so that the time dimension is flat. But that makes the spacial positions a lot more difficult to calculate.
Personally, I think that gravity is an affect of a combination of time dilation and the uncertainty principle. This is a bit hard to visualize, and I couldn't begin to write down the equations, but I think it's because where time is moving more slowly, if a particle is there, it stays there longer than it would where the time is moving slightly faster. The particle is unitary, but diffuse, so part of it is higher in the field than the rest of it. That part will change it's probability of being there faster than will the part that's in the denser (i.e., slower) part of the field, so it will change its proable position more rapidly, but it will be constrained to maintain it's distance from the part that is slower, and given the 3-d nature of space (when separated from time) it will tend to end up in a slower part of the field. Note that this is all probabilistic, and is modeling particles as if they were pieces of sponge rubber. Not too accurate. To really do this you need to be calculating the probability of detecting a particle at position p1 at time t1 if it started at p0 at t0, but this won't work, because I'm considering different parts of the "probability of detection" as being modified by the rate of flow of time at their location.
YARGH!! The math is WAY over my head. And I may be wrong. But it gets rid of gravity as anything separate from the bending of space by mass. Of course, if gravitons are ever detected, that probably means this theory is dead. Unless, of course, they are sort of like gluons (Have gluons been detected? Can they be detected?) in being the thing that causes space to warp.
No! No! No!
We have done VERY few experiments at geostationary orbit. It's very hard to get to, and the signal lag is noticiable, so it's only useful for one-way links.
The experiments were done at Near Earth Orbit. The GPS systems *could* be in geostationary orbit, but that would be both the broadcast and receiver would need to be more powerful. Nobody made that choice, because it's stupid (in this decade, or last decade, and probably next decade). For that to be a good choice you need to have extremely sensitive receivers (compared to those we have today) and powerful broadcast signals (compared to those we use today). Not something I feel comfortable in predicting. And if you had all the necessaries, geostationary orbits are already getting crowded. So the savings in the number of sattelites used wouldn't pay for the choice of orbit.
Note that media channels have a very different set of tradeoffs, and for them it makes sense. But even then direct to end-user isn't popular. The ground stations are too large and expensive. It might make sense for a small town, or a large trailer park Perhaps for a really large apartment house. But why wouldn't the apartment house or the trailer park already have cable?
And THAT is hard to explain without dark matter.
The question I have is "Why do they assume that it's simple, and doesn't interact with itself?" Actually, since we're talking about, say, 9/10 of the matter in the universe, why don't we assume that there are 9 non-interacting kinds of dark matter, and that each of those kinds is as diverse as what we think of as normal matter?
Please note, I realize that this isn't in the standard model, but searches based on the standard model haven't been notably successful, so I don't see any reason to believe that it applies.
I know that they think they're applying Occam's Razor, but that's only looking at it in one direction. From another direction since we rarely encounter anything that's homogeneous, to assume that something you can't really see is homogeneous appears to be a violation of Occam's Razor (though, admittedly, not as much a violation as would the assumption of any partiuclar variation). But every time that I can recall when we've assumed that the things we don't really understand are simple and unitary, we've been wrong.
I believe that's the chance of any particular pair being in collision. The chance of some pair being in collision would be appreciably larger. And you left out the number of bins in the hash. Even if the raw md5sum would be different, when you change it into a bin number it will be quite a bit smaller...though this can be handled by chaining, etc.
But, yest, it is critically dependent on the number of files to be examined. If he's managing a large library of images, and they are valuable, then he might want to avoid this approach. If he's managing his own photos, there's probably no problem. However, unless I'm misunderstanding Exif documentation (likely) that would allow him to properly compare images at different resolutions and in different formats, where md5sum wouldn't.
call, not cal
Egypt, not egypt
ulcers, not uncers
The interesting thing is that recent archaeological investigations have tended to show that cancer and heart disease (what you cal "lifestyle diseases") were equally common in ancient egypt and (to the extent it's determinable, small sample, poor evidence) among paleolithic hunter-gatherers.
The evidence isn't conclusive yet, but then neither is the evidence that they actually *are* lifestyle diseases. Remember when everyone was convinced that uncers where a disease caused by stress among middle managers? The evidence needed to convince people is a lot more meager than the evidence needed to actually establish causation.
I don't know if you've heard, but there's a condominium complex in, I think it was, Texas that decided to go after dog owners who didn't clean up after their dogs. So they genetically sequence each dog, and each turd that is left. And then they send the bill to the owner of the dog.
Perhaps you had better reconsider your planned activities.
Got some problems here. Yes, there are problems that need to be addressed that are social problems more than individual problems. There are also problems that need to be addressed that are more individual than social. And the two sets of problems are tightly intertwined. But ANY either/or "solution" is not a solution.
E.g., marriage. Did you ever read/see "My Fair Lady"? Consider the morality of Eliza's father. She was out of wedlock. He knew of her, and didn't feel obliged to support her. (More the converse, actually.) Now realize that this is a romanticized version of Shaw's Pygmalion, and that Shaw, himself, was not poor. But he knew his population. The poor, because of their economic incentives, diidn't take things like marriage seriously. The middle class did. So when Professor 'iggins arranged for Eliza's father to become relatively prosperous, he ended up getting married to Eliza's mother.
Well, fiction is not life. It's a simplified image of life. And many considered Shaw to be "too brutally frank". So I think we can be sure that he made things look better than they really were. But he also didn't lie about what he saw as the nature of morality. (This frequently got people quite upset with him.)
Now when we look at the modern US we see similar social customs. (Well, we need to mix in "Mack the Knife" to get an accurate image. Different authors show different aspects of their current social scene.) But when we see the same patterns popping up again, we are justified in assuming that there is something systematic going on. Blaming individuals won't solve that. But some people will succeed despite the environment. This is probably due to more luck than they will admit, but also due in part to their nature.
Additionally, "As the twig is bent..." has an unfortunate amount of truth to it. Solving the social problems won't immediately cure the individuals who have been warped by the existing system. Indeed, epigenetics suggests that there may be some physical damage that persists for several generations. (I think three is the largest that has been shown experimentally.) And the social equivalent of that is that children who are raised by parents who have been warped tend to acquire a warped personality in turn. Again, this has been shown to disipate over generations, but THIS problem can significantly diminish over just a few years. So it persists, but the level at which it persists can become low enough that it stops being a major impediment to others.
Please note that I have not recommended any particular means of solving the problem. I haven't been convinced by any proposal I've heard. Certainly not by any "anonomous coward" who claims to have escaped from the mess. Even if I had a real reason to believe that he is who he says, I would probably consider him mainly (though not entirely) someone who was extremely fortunate.
You can't really depend on hashed to not put different keys into the same bin. Given md5sum, or some such, collisions won't be frequent, but they will happen.
This may not matter. What's the cost of missing an image or two? If it's not large, then the small probability of a collision may be good enough.
Exif is based on metadata, so the probability of an improper collision is probably less than for, say, md5sum. It's also mor e likely to recognize slightly different images as being the same. This is probably why he was suggesting comparing on Exif. (IIUC, using Exif you can even standardize and only compare on thumbnails of the image, which would standardize the image for different sizes, and allow jpg's to be compared against, say, tiff's...but this is WAY out of my depth, and is based on a superficial reading of so documentation.)
Cheat! You read the summary!
I'm not certain the US qualifies as a republic, either. I will, however, admit that it's closer to a republic than to a democracy.
Republic
That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.
The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.
an extract from http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
This doesn't seem to include the role played by corporations in the modern US, but otherwise it seems about right.
Not really, though there is a spread in that direction. However historically religiously connected advocation of bettering the common good has been acceptable. Even when without the religious connection it would be labelled socialist. Or even Socialist.
Perhaps some small town should get their church to install community Wi-Fi to "spread the word". That would be the test.
Whether you think it's stupid or not depends on what you think their purposes were. I would have accepted "sleazy" or "manipulative" as appropriate, but I don't really think it was "stupid".
I'm not a real fan of deterrence. It doesn't usually seem to work very well, and it tends to degrade the rest of society. But those in power when convicted should be imprisoned in the same conditions into which they shoved others. That way, if they think they have a chance of being convicted, they may act ahead of time to improve those conditions.
And I am a strong believers that those who make the laws should be MORE bound to obey them than are those who merely have the laws imposed upon them. Unfortunately, having the power they generally prefer to make sure that their punishment will be minor if they happen to be caught. But that doesn't have anything to do with should.
I hope this answers your statement, but I'll admit that I didn't really understand it, and had no interest in following the links you provided.
I started work before the internet was accessible outside academia and the gov. I never had occasion to dig into its management. And there's a good chance I won't remember this discussion in 5 years, because internet domain management is WAY out of my area of interest.
So I've likely encountered this being discussed before, and not remembered.
And THAT means that the gggp had a reasonable argument. (I.e., that the guy receiving the statement from Network Solutions should go to another registrar.) If he'd originally said "move his url to a different registrar" then this would never have come up, but, like most of you, he appeared to consider that obvious.
Well, not quite...but close. I know small pieces of it, and I've done static HTML pages, but I'm from a background where Fortran was the main language. These days I generally use Python, because I'm acceppting the performance hit, and because none of the other languages that I've tried make doing everything I'm attempting easy. But I still don't do web scripting or domain management. I might write a TCP server, but it would be intended for use over UNIX sockets (i.e., files).
When I started programming professionally, around 1970, not only were mainframes the only choice, but we didn't even have an in-house terminal. Things have changed a bit since then, and I sure don't know all the details about all the changes. In particular I wasn't certain that a registrar didn't own the names they registered. (Try moving an e-mail address. They won't even forward it for you. I thought this might be something similar.)
Get a clue to how your mind works:
ANYTHING you pay a lot of attention to over a reasonable period of time will start showing up in your dreams. ANYTHING. If you have a strong emotional reaction, of any sort, that just strengthens it, but I've had times when I dreamed about spreadsheets, which was difficult, because they weren't spreadsheets about anything in particular, but just spreadsheets as in numbers (illegible, uninterpreted) laid out in a grid.
If you want a really wierd experience, read James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" for a few weeks. Study it, and try to figure out what it means. Then watch your dreams. (Maybe James Joyce's dreams were usually like that, but mine sure weren't.)
Actually, yes. Originally Heroin was marked as an addicition free morphine derivative. Well, the 25 (I think it was) people they tested it on didn't get addicted....
Since everyone else is ignoring it, I'll mention the laws written by corporate legal departments and passed to their tame legislators to introduce without anyone outside the corporations legal staff bothering to read them.
I don't claim the majority of the laws happen that way, but many of the very worst have. Including some that didn't pass, but had to be fought, draining time and energy away from useful activities.
OTOH, there do exist decent lawyers. There even exist several that are worthy of praise. But WRT a large number of them, society would be improved by their disbarment. And the fact that they AREN'T disbarred, is proof that the legal profession is largely composed of criminals. (Anyone who would argue that payment of money to a legislator to pass a law isn't bribery merits disbarment...if not worse. Any legislator who accepts such money deserves 20 years in federal prison...and not a "gentleman's club", either.
And if he goes to another registrar, can he take is name with him? Sorry. but it's not clear to me that he can. If he can, then your argument makes sense.
Your argument could make sense if you actually believe that the existing laws are all enforced equally on all members of society.
OTOH,
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
-- Anatole France
According to the docs on the site, QChars and QStrings are both utf-16. If this is wrong, perhaps the documentation should be fixed.