Actually most cars here have lug-bolts rather than lug-nuts, and you can't put the bolt in the wrong way.
What you can however do is failing to seat the wheel 100% before tigthening the lug-bolts, for example having debris or dirt on the inner side of the wheel. Once the debris dislocates, for example because of vibration, acceleration and deceleration, the bolts come loose and the wheel may fall off.
Which is why the instruction-booklet says to retigthen the bolts after having driven 10 miles or so. Which in my experience 99% of car-owners neglect to do.
Here (norway) immunisation is not really controversial and the overwhelming majority gets it. The exception is HPV that is controversial in some small subgroups, mainly strictly religious, because it's immunisation against a virus that is transmitted most commonly by sexual contact.
The pity is that in Norway 16 is the age of consent, and also the age of independent decision over healthcare (i.e. when you're 16 -you- are the one who decided yes-or-no to some medical procedure), the average age of sexual debut is 17.2, but about a year lower for girls. (because girls dating older guys is more common than the reverse)
In short: By the time the girls are 16 and free to decide for -themselves- if they want HPV-immunisation or not, aproximately 40% of them have already debuted sexually, and aproximately 10% of them will already have contracted the (otherwise harmless and quite common) virus. And the thing with HPV-immunisation is: the immunisation does not work if you get the virus before the vaccine.
So, those 10% of girls have no choice other than accept the risk that they're about 3 times as likely to get that particular type of cancer as other girls, because the parents insist on risking the health of their daugthers based on a religiously motivated hatred of perfectly normal human sexuality.
True. And in -any- business. My brother is a car-mechanic. True anecdote follows:
Lady on the phone: "Could you please send a mechanic to fix my car ? I can't come to the garage, because the problem is, a wheel fell off".
Brother: "We could do that, where do you live ?"
Lady: "At so-and-so, oh and could the mechanic please stop in the crossing of X and Y, pick up the wheel and bring it along, that's where it fell off."
Brother: "So, that's where we'll find the vehicle too then ?"
Lady: "Oh no, I noticed the wheel falling off, and the car made a horrible scraping sound, but I was in a hurry, so I drove it home on 3 wheels."
End-effect: A 10-minute re-attachment of a wheel turned into the need to completely replace the disc-brake on one wheel, and readjust suspension. $1500, for what would otherwise have been like $100 (she could've put the wheel back on herself really, if she had half a clue)
It varies by area which vaccines are recommended, but I'd say aproximately 8 different diseases ? Some of those are combined into a single syringe, but on the other hand some need 2-3 doses.
I'd guesstimate that my 1-year olds have been injected aproximately 5 times, and there's a few things they'll get or refresh later when they start school. HPV is recommended at 12 here. (it really just needs to before people start to have sex)
There's a second effect with immunization -- network-effects. Immunization has two effects, typically.
First, and primarily, it reduces (not eliminates!) the risk that you'll get sick if exposed to the pathogen.
Second, because you're immune to the pathogen, you'll also not be a carrier and spread the disease to others.
It's actually pretty safe to -not- be immunized, if you live in a society where 95% of those surrounding you *ARE* immunized. Because most pathogens have a hard time spreading if only 1/20 are able to be a carrier.
That is one reason why "immunization ain't important, disease-rates are falling anyway" is a stupid argument to be making, those making it should consider the possibility that rates are falling -BECAUSE- of immunization.
First, remember that evolution only works on stuff that changes the chance that you'll have children, or the number of children you have. If you die of lung-cancer at 60 or live healthily to 80, this likely makes no difference whatsoever to the number of children you'll have, or the survival-chance of the children you do have.
Evolution does however work just fine for risky behaviour. Flying by plane ain't (normally) risky behaviour, dying as a result of it is just plain bad luck. But people who regularily engage in high-risk activities will more often die in young age than those who don't. And this is something for which evolution most definitely work.
You may argue that young people, particularily males, do take significant risk. That is true, but it's possible that taking those risks may have been, on the average, worthwhile over the timescales where evolution works. A cowardly young man may have had more problems attracting a mate. Or more problems keeping her from other males. Or less likely to get a respected status in the tribe (which would help the prospects of his children a lot)
Today it's offcourse just silly; you increase neither the availability of women nor your standing in the tribe much (if any) by engaging in stupid high-risk activities like going 100mph in car by nigth, intoxicated. But our genes change on a -much- longer timescale than do society, so sometimes we're adapted for a different time than the one we're living in.
If you're scared, atleast be so for the rigth reasons.
If you're in a trend where you gain a few pounds a year, this will quite likely kill you, *certainly* make you more sick and limit your quality of life.
If you're participating in traffic regularily, this is the area where you're most likely to die a violent death.
If you're smoking, quitting that would give a larger benefit than anything else.
Quit smoking, don't *ever* drive while intoxicated, wear a seatbelt, don't be obese, get some exersize if your work is the office-type.
These aren't spectacular things. But they reduce a lot of risks considerably. Terrorism, in contrast, doesn't even rank in the top-100 among things likely to kill you.
Not just sometimes. -over-reaction and -over-protection is always the wrong answer, that's why it's got "over" in there, kinda a giveaway, don't you think ?
The trick is figuring out which response is apropriate.
Independently from that, you should make a conscious evalutaion of what is risky, and pay special attention to the fact that human beings are hardwired to notice the seldom but spectacular events while ignoring the many mundane ones, even when the cumulative risk from the latter is orders of magnitude larger.
Media magnifies this by giving endless coverage to the few spectacular catastrophies, while ignoring the many small ones completely.
People worry about stranger pedophiles, but largely -ignore- the fact that aproximately 90% of the children who are abused are abused by people who are close friends or family.
People worry about being the victim of a terrorist-plot, but ignore the fact that average traffic is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you. (in addition, this latter risk is much easier for you individually to influence)
They worry about nuclear powerplants blowing up and giving a lot of people cancer, and forget that more people get cancer in a -month- from smoking than died in total from the Chernobyl-incident.
It's just human nature. Doesn't mean it's sane.
In the real world, by far the most likely violent deaths are traffic-accident and suicide. Both of those are dwarfed by the main diseases, a large fraction of which are preventable (or reducable) by the simple expedient of avoiding obesity and getting enough varied exersize. (the latter will help with the former too...)
No. They are not. Listen, people aren't all idiots. If electrical vehicles where competitive with normal ones, people would be buying them, in large numbers.
The truth is the energy-content of batteries, sucks MAJOR compared to gasoline if you compare by volume, and suck even more if you compare based on mass.
The Roadster you mention can store 53Kwh, when the batteries are brand-new, the temperature is optimal, and the moon is in the preferable phase.
That is equivalent to aproximately 1.3 gallons of gasoline. Really. A normal fuel-tank that holds 1.3 gallons of gasoline will hold the same energy as the batteries in the Roadster.
Now, it -does- have higher efficiency, primarily due to less loss as heat and less transmission-losses due to direct-drive motors, so it does outperform a 1.3 gallon fuel-tank. Still, frankly, thats absolutely PUNY.
And to store this PATHETHIC amount of energy, it uses 6831 expensive lithium-ion cells, which adds up to 1000lbs of batteries.
1000 lbs of batteries storing an amount of energy comparable to 1.3 gallons of gasoline. Yeah. You're totally convincing here, that sounds like an EXCELLENT replacement. NOT.
To add insult to injury, charging takes forever. To use -YOUR- examplecar; it can charge to 90% in 3 hours. Which compares -rather- disfavourably with the time needed to charge a gasoline-powered car.
Really. Electric vehicles are good-enough for a few specialised applications, if you're willing to deal with the pathethic performance and high price in exchange for less operating-pollution.
They are however not even -close- to being a general replacement for the gasoline or diesel-powered car.
Sales reflect this: A few niche-uses, perhaps 1% of all cars or thereabout.
Hopefully in the future they will be more generally usable. Presently they're emphatically not.
I said "if the device becomes common". In that case a would-be rapist would assume there's a fair chance any random woman wears the device, and take precautions.
If the device is -not- common, it would have a sligthly higher chance of working for those few women who do use it, but in that case it would offcourse do little to change rape-statistics one way or the other.
I am also less than confident about the "no revenge" part. This seems like wishful thinking. Even if there's just 10% chance that the rapist will kill the woman, and then run away, and 90% chance that the woman will get away unhurt, is that gamble worthwhile ?
Being confident helps primarily in making the criminal choose a victim -different- from you. If *everyone* acts less like an ideal victim. It's sorta like being a big and strong-looking guy. It helps to some degree, but what helps isn't your objective size, but your size compared to the average, compared to the attacker.
If all males in the world got 2 inches taller and gained 10 pounds of muscle tomorrow, this would make no difference at all to the likelihood of say being assaulted or mugged as a male.
If *you* gained 2 inches and 10 pounds of muscle, with everyone else staying the way they are, yes, that would help -you-.
True. But it's not just oil, its fossil fuels in general.
You're right that geothermal cannot replace gasoline aslong as batteries suck as much as they do.
But if you could replace all -stationary- power-production, that'd still be a significant net win. Oil-powered electricity-plants, sure, but as you say, those are few anyway. Also gas-powered electricity-plants, coal-powered electricity-plants.
To the degree that people burn fossil fuels in order to heat their homes/factories that could also be replaced, indeed using geothermal heat for heat will give increased efficiency over using it for electricity-generation. You can even do both: the -cooling- for the electricity-plant can be used for -heating- elsewhere.
No single technology can solve the entire problem. But each technology can contribute to solving -part- of the problem.
Interestingly, that's been the case here (Norway).
Get me rigth -- the things -are- selling well. But they're not hard in the least to find. Walk into any electronic-store, and they'll likely have a stack containing literally hundreds of the things, which lasts for a few weeks, whereafter they resupply the stack.
Other than the first month after launch, there's not been a problem, and isn't a problem.
Sure. But the thing is, passion for knowledge is -also- infectious. You're more likely to want to learn if your parents are curious, inquisitive, open, experimenting and themselves learning than if they know nothing and look down on people who know anything as "intellectual snobs" or the like.
Not saying there's no exception -- the always are. But like I said, on the average the connection holds.
The point was, in short that "Excellent test-results, you must've worked really hard!" is better feedback than "Excellent test-results, you are clearly talented".
The hypothesis is that the former instills the idea that results are had by hard work, while the latter gives the idea that inborn talent is the primary decider of outcome. Children who hear the latter often tend to give up more easily when something -isn't- easy.
Because they think the problem is they're not smart enough.
Children in the first group don't give up that quick; they're more likely to think the problem is they've not been giving it enough effort.
The second thinking is more fruitful than the first.
Law, or more precisely, lawmakers, are guilty of creating a complex, ever-growing MASSIVE amount of law, large enough that it's essentially impossible for anyone to know the whole of it. Even lawyers have to specialise on a small area of law.
But the basics are still -basics-. People should know them. Not knowing your (aproximate!) rights -WILL- hurt you. Which particular laws is important to know (the basics about) varies with jurisdiction. I'm from Norway, I would say an average individual here should know the basics on criminal, consumer-protection, worker-protection and copyright -- the latter only if you work with copyrigthed works or if you share and copy material. (most young people do, many older people don't) If you're renting your dwelling, it's also a good idea to know basics about renter-protection.
This ain't hard. And it ain't complicated. Just the basics. Learning the above takes a day or two, literally.
The amount of damages is for a court to decide. GPL-programs don't need to be free by the way. (they often are, but there's nothing preventing me from writing a program and offering it to you under the GPL for $50000, say)
The damages are unlikely to be zero even if the product is available for zero cost. Even if a band has a certain song available for free on their homepage, this doesn't mean a radio-station can play it without paying them for it, or a record-company put it on a CD and sell it.
The strictest punishment is still probably in many cases that you're barred from further distributing your product. It contains copyrigthed material from someone, and you have no license to distribute that, afterall. Stopping distribution of a product is very costly, even if you pay little monetary damages. (this applies less when the product is no longer being sold anyway offcourse)
There is no conflict with copyright law. It's perfectly self-consistent to say:
"I'd prefer if all works where shared freely. However under current law I'm not allowed to use -your- works for free, so aslong as that's the case I don't want you to use -mine- without conditions either."
Besides, it's not the same people. There's no particular reason to think that whoever wrote the library that ended up in ICO is also a music-downloader, or for that matter that the person is a copyright-hater.
I guess that may be true in some insane jurisdictions.
Copying that is required in the course of ordinary use of the work is however explicitly allowed in most areas. And indeed in many even copying beyond that is explicitly allowed for your own personal use.
You copy a book by reading it too: You bounce photons off it, creating a (short-lived) copy being broadcasted, you then transform some of these into electrical signals carrying the same information (a copy, not the original) into your brain. You then copy substantial parts of this information into your own long-time storage, called "memory".
Non-isane jurisdictions don't count such copies, arising from normal use of the work, as copyright-relevant.
Copying to RAM to run a program is quite equivalent to copying to brain to use a book. The book is completely useless unless accessible to brain by way of photons and electrical signals. The program is completely useless accessible to CPU by way of magnetic fields, electronic signals and charges stored in RAM-cells.
Again; I recognize that insane jurisdictions exist. And I acknowledge that eulas -may- be relevant in some of them.
First, the device is designed to slide out easily (and painlessly for the female) once it has attached to a penis. Just insert and withdraw any other random object.
Second, the device is described as being easy and quick for the female to insert or remove, if so it'll be aproximately equally easy for anyone else to do. Keep in mind that this is somebody being raped. "remove that thing or I blow your head off" will likely do the trick perfectly fine.
As for me being familiar with female anatomy, that's so wrong it's funny. How about a major in biology, and a mother who is a midwife and has literally shelf-meters on such for the theoretical part and having 3 kids for the practical part ?
I'm aware of that. However you can't have a "license" take -AWAY- rights that I would otherwise have and expect me to be bound by the license without ever having agreed to it.
That is the point. For example, the GPL gives you a right that you wouldn't normally have (the right to copy and redistribute), and stipulates certain conditions you need to comply with if you want those rights.
If you do -NOT- want those rights, however, you're free to completely ignore the GPL and simply stick within the limits of copyright-law.
The "license" on the inside of shrink-wrapped book saying "You are not authorised to read this book aloud unless you..." is invalid, or more precisely, you can ignore it, because even without a license you're allowed to do that.
If the same license said: "You may publicly perform this book, under the following conditions...." it *would* however be relevant. It gives you rigths that you don't normally have. If you -want- those rights, you must comply with the terms offered (or negotiate different terms with the copyright-holder), however you're -still- free to ignore the text if you don't plan to publicly perform the work.
So, a "license" on a game, stating that "you may not reverse-engineer this game..." is completely irrelevant, that is an activity that is -already- allowed, you don't need any license for it.
Somebody is reading too much into the "batteries are like buckets of electricity" analogy we all got back in school. Real batteries don't work quite like that.
Yes they do. If you have three identical, batteries, all fully charged, then each of them will hold aproximately the same amount of energy. If you drain one of the 3 without touching the other 2 you have now drained 1/3rd of your available energy.
It's annoying though. I much prefer the alternative being presented here: how about a phone that detects when charge starts to get low (say 25% left) and that responds by shifting the pitch of ringtones and beeps downwards and slowing them down ?
Sorta how a old-fashioned tape-player that is almost out of juice sounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually most cars here have lug-bolts rather than lug-nuts, and you can't put the bolt in the wrong way.
What you can however do is failing to seat the wheel 100% before tigthening the lug-bolts, for example having debris or dirt on the inner side of the wheel. Once the debris dislocates, for example because of vibration, acceleration and deceleration, the bolts come loose and the wheel may fall off.
Which is why the instruction-booklet says to retigthen the bolts after having driven 10 miles or so. Which in my experience 99% of car-owners neglect to do.
Here (norway) immunisation is not really controversial and the overwhelming majority gets it. The exception is HPV that is controversial in some small subgroups, mainly strictly religious, because it's immunisation against a virus that is transmitted most commonly by sexual contact.
The pity is that in Norway 16 is the age of consent, and also the age of independent decision over healthcare (i.e. when you're 16 -you- are the one who decided yes-or-no to some medical procedure), the average age of sexual debut is 17.2, but about a year lower for girls. (because girls dating older guys is more common than the reverse)
In short: By the time the girls are 16 and free to decide for -themselves- if they want HPV-immunisation or not, aproximately 40% of them have already debuted sexually, and aproximately 10% of them will already have contracted the (otherwise harmless and quite common) virus. And the thing with HPV-immunisation is: the immunisation does not work if you get the virus before the vaccine.
So, those 10% of girls have no choice other than accept the risk that they're about 3 times as likely to get that particular type of cancer as other girls, because the parents insist on risking the health of their daugthers based on a religiously motivated hatred of perfectly normal human sexuality.
True. And in -any- business. My brother is a car-mechanic. True anecdote follows:
Lady on the phone: "Could you please send a mechanic to fix my car ? I can't come to the garage, because the problem is, a wheel fell off".
Brother: "We could do that, where do you live ?"
Lady: "At so-and-so, oh and could the mechanic please stop in the crossing of X and Y, pick up the wheel and bring it along, that's where it fell off."
Brother: "So, that's where we'll find the vehicle too then ?"
Lady: "Oh no, I noticed the wheel falling off, and the car made a horrible scraping sound, but I was in a hurry, so I drove it home on 3 wheels."
End-effect: A 10-minute re-attachment of a wheel turned into the need to completely replace the disc-brake on one wheel, and readjust suspension. $1500, for what would otherwise have been like $100 (she could've put the wheel back on herself really, if she had half a clue)
HPV is recommended at 12 here. Not really "start of adulthood", more like "well before the start of the sexual career"
It varies by area which vaccines are recommended, but I'd say aproximately 8 different diseases ? Some of those are combined into a single syringe, but on the other hand some need 2-3 doses.
I'd guesstimate that my 1-year olds have been injected aproximately 5 times, and there's a few things they'll get or refresh later when they start school. HPV is recommended at 12 here. (it really just needs to before people start to have sex)
There's a second effect with immunization -- network-effects. Immunization has two effects, typically.
First, and primarily, it reduces (not eliminates!) the risk that you'll get sick if exposed to the pathogen.
Second, because you're immune to the pathogen, you'll also not be a carrier and spread the disease to others.
It's actually pretty safe to -not- be immunized, if you live in a society where 95% of those surrounding you *ARE* immunized. Because most pathogens have a hard time spreading if only 1/20 are able to be a carrier.
That is one reason why "immunization ain't important, disease-rates are falling anyway" is a stupid argument to be making, those making it should consider the possibility that rates are falling -BECAUSE- of immunization.
It's late and you should go sleep :-)
First, remember that evolution only works on stuff that changes the chance that you'll have children, or the number of children you have. If you die of lung-cancer at 60 or live healthily to 80, this likely makes no difference whatsoever to the number of children you'll have, or the survival-chance of the children you do have.
Evolution does however work just fine for risky behaviour. Flying by plane ain't (normally) risky behaviour, dying as a result of it is just plain bad luck. But people who regularily engage in high-risk activities will more often die in young age than those who don't. And this is something for which evolution most definitely work.
You may argue that young people, particularily males, do take significant risk. That is true, but it's possible that taking those risks may have been, on the average, worthwhile over the timescales where evolution works. A cowardly young man may have had more problems attracting a mate. Or more problems keeping her from other males. Or less likely to get a respected status in the tribe (which would help the prospects of his children a lot)
Today it's offcourse just silly; you increase neither the availability of women nor your standing in the tribe much (if any) by engaging in stupid high-risk activities like going 100mph in car by nigth, intoxicated. But our genes change on a -much- longer timescale than do society, so sometimes we're adapted for a different time than the one we're living in.
If you're scared, atleast be so for the rigth reasons.
If you're in a trend where you gain a few pounds a year, this will quite likely kill you, *certainly* make you more sick and limit your quality of life.
If you're participating in traffic regularily, this is the area where you're most likely to die a violent death.
If you're smoking, quitting that would give a larger benefit than anything else.
Quit smoking, don't *ever* drive while intoxicated, wear a seatbelt, don't be obese, get some exersize if your work is the office-type.
These aren't spectacular things. But they reduce a lot of risks considerably. Terrorism, in contrast, doesn't even rank in the top-100 among things likely to kill you.
Not just sometimes. -over-reaction and -over-protection is always the wrong answer, that's why it's got "over" in there, kinda a giveaway, don't you think ?
The trick is figuring out which response is apropriate.
Independently from that, you should make a conscious evalutaion of what is risky, and pay special attention to the fact that human beings are hardwired to notice the seldom but spectacular events while ignoring the many mundane ones, even when the cumulative risk from the latter is orders of magnitude larger.
Media magnifies this by giving endless coverage to the few spectacular catastrophies, while ignoring the many small ones completely.
People worry about stranger pedophiles, but largely -ignore- the fact that aproximately 90% of the children who are abused are abused by people who are close friends or family.
People worry about being the victim of a terrorist-plot, but ignore the fact that average traffic is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you. (in addition, this latter risk is much easier for you individually to influence)
They worry about nuclear powerplants blowing up and giving a lot of people cancer, and forget that more people get cancer in a -month- from smoking than died in total from the Chernobyl-incident.
It's just human nature. Doesn't mean it's sane.
In the real world, by far the most likely violent deaths are traffic-accident and suicide. Both of those are dwarfed by the main diseases, a large fraction of which are preventable (or reducable) by the simple expedient of avoiding obesity and getting enough varied exersize. (the latter will help with the former too...)
No. They are not. Listen, people aren't all idiots. If electrical vehicles where competitive with normal ones, people would be buying them, in large numbers.
The truth is the energy-content of batteries, sucks MAJOR compared to gasoline if you compare by volume, and suck even more if you compare based on mass.
The Roadster you mention can store 53Kwh, when the batteries are brand-new, the temperature is optimal, and the moon is in the preferable phase.
That is equivalent to aproximately 1.3 gallons of gasoline. Really. A normal fuel-tank that holds 1.3 gallons of gasoline will hold the same energy as the batteries in the Roadster.
Now, it -does- have higher efficiency, primarily due to less loss as heat and less transmission-losses due to direct-drive motors, so it does outperform a 1.3 gallon fuel-tank. Still, frankly, thats absolutely PUNY.
And to store this PATHETHIC amount of energy, it uses 6831 expensive lithium-ion cells, which adds up to 1000lbs of batteries.
1000 lbs of batteries storing an amount of energy comparable to 1.3 gallons of gasoline. Yeah. You're totally convincing here, that sounds like an EXCELLENT replacement. NOT.
To add insult to injury, charging takes forever. To use -YOUR- examplecar; it can charge to 90% in 3 hours. Which compares -rather- disfavourably with the time needed to charge a gasoline-powered car.
Really. Electric vehicles are good-enough for a few specialised applications, if you're willing to deal with the pathethic performance and high price in exchange for less operating-pollution.
They are however not even -close- to being a general replacement for the gasoline or diesel-powered car.
Sales reflect this: A few niche-uses, perhaps 1% of all cars or thereabout.
Hopefully in the future they will be more generally usable. Presently they're emphatically not.
I said "if the device becomes common". In that case a would-be rapist would assume there's a fair chance any random woman wears the device, and take precautions.
If the device is -not- common, it would have a sligthly higher chance of working for those few women who do use it, but in that case it would offcourse do little to change rape-statistics one way or the other.
I am also less than confident about the "no revenge" part. This seems like wishful thinking. Even if there's just 10% chance that the rapist will kill the woman, and then run away, and 90% chance that the woman will get away unhurt, is that gamble worthwhile ?
Being confident helps primarily in making the criminal choose a victim -different- from you. If *everyone* acts less like an ideal victim. It's sorta like being a big and strong-looking guy. It helps to some degree, but what helps isn't your objective size, but your size compared to the average, compared to the attacker.
If all males in the world got 2 inches taller and gained 10 pounds of muscle tomorrow, this would make no difference at all to the likelihood of say being assaulted or mugged as a male.
If *you* gained 2 inches and 10 pounds of muscle, with everyone else staying the way they are, yes, that would help -you-.
True. But it's not just oil, its fossil fuels in general.
You're right that geothermal cannot replace gasoline aslong as batteries suck as much as they do.
But if you could replace all -stationary- power-production, that'd still be a significant net win. Oil-powered electricity-plants, sure, but as you say, those are few anyway. Also gas-powered electricity-plants, coal-powered electricity-plants.
To the degree that people burn fossil fuels in order to heat their homes/factories that could also be replaced, indeed using geothermal heat for heat will give increased efficiency over using it for electricity-generation. You can even do both: the -cooling- for the electricity-plant can be used for -heating- elsewhere.
No single technology can solve the entire problem. But each technology can contribute to solving -part- of the problem.
No reason to get your trousers into a knot.
All I said was that on the average, children of knowledgeable parents will tend to learn more than children of parents who themselves know little.
It seems you agree with this, so I don't understand why you get so agitated about it.
Interestingly, that's been the case here (Norway).
Get me rigth -- the things -are- selling well. But they're not hard in the least to find. Walk into any electronic-store, and they'll likely have a stack containing literally hundreds of the things, which lasts for a few weeks, whereafter they resupply the stack.
Other than the first month after launch, there's not been a problem, and isn't a problem.
Sure. But the thing is, passion for knowledge is -also- infectious. You're more likely to want to learn if your parents are curious, inquisitive, open, experimenting and themselves learning than if they know nothing and look down on people who know anything as "intellectual snobs" or the like. Not saying there's no exception -- the always are. But like I said, on the average the connection holds.
Sure. The -single- most important thing in deciding what kids will know is what the parents know.
It's not just the knowledge, but also the -passion- for knowledge, and the idea that knowing something is actually worthwhile.
Part of it may also be genetical intelligence, but I'm thinking that may be the smallest part.
Whatever the cause, dumb parents tend to end up having dumb kids, and vice versa. (there's always exceptions, but the general trend holds)
Let me guess, you didn't read the article.
The point was, in short that "Excellent test-results, you must've worked really hard!" is better feedback than "Excellent test-results, you are clearly talented".
The hypothesis is that the former instills the idea that results are had by hard work, while the latter gives the idea that inborn talent is the primary decider of outcome. Children who hear the latter often tend to give up more easily when something -isn't- easy.
Because they think the problem is they're not smart enough.
Children in the first group don't give up that quick; they're more likely to think the problem is they've not been giving it enough effort.
The second thinking is more fruitful than the first.
No sense in blaming victims, I agree.
There's sometimes sense in telling people: "By doing X you can decrease the chance that you'll be a victim" though.
Both, frankly.
Law, or more precisely, lawmakers, are guilty of creating a complex, ever-growing MASSIVE amount of law, large enough that it's essentially impossible for anyone to know the whole of it. Even lawyers have to specialise on a small area of law.
But the basics are still -basics-. People should know them. Not knowing your (aproximate!) rights -WILL- hurt you. Which particular laws is important to know (the basics about) varies with jurisdiction. I'm from Norway, I would say an average individual here should know the basics on criminal, consumer-protection, worker-protection and copyright -- the latter only if you work with copyrigthed works or if you share and copy material. (most young people do, many older people don't) If you're renting your dwelling, it's also a good idea to know basics about renter-protection.
This ain't hard. And it ain't complicated. Just the basics. Learning the above takes a day or two, literally.
The amount of damages is for a court to decide. GPL-programs don't need to be free by the way. (they often are, but there's nothing preventing me from writing a program and offering it to you under the GPL for $50000, say)
The damages are unlikely to be zero even if the product is available for zero cost. Even if a band has a certain song available for free on their homepage, this doesn't mean a radio-station can play it without paying them for it, or a record-company put it on a CD and sell it.
The strictest punishment is still probably in many cases that you're barred from further distributing your product. It contains copyrigthed material from someone, and you have no license to distribute that, afterall. Stopping distribution of a product is very costly, even if you pay little monetary damages. (this applies less when the product is no longer being sold anyway offcourse)
There is no conflict with copyright law. It's perfectly self-consistent to say:
"I'd prefer if all works where shared freely. However under current law I'm not allowed to use -your- works for free, so aslong as that's the case I don't want you to use -mine- without conditions either."
Besides, it's not the same people. There's no particular reason to think that whoever wrote the library that ended up in ICO is also a music-downloader, or for that matter that the person is a copyright-hater.
I guess that may be true in some insane jurisdictions.
Copying that is required in the course of ordinary use of the work is however explicitly allowed in most areas. And indeed in many even copying beyond that is explicitly allowed for your own personal use.
You copy a book by reading it too: You bounce photons off it, creating a (short-lived) copy being broadcasted, you then transform some of these into electrical signals carrying the same information (a copy, not the original) into your brain. You then copy substantial parts of this information into your own long-time storage, called "memory".
Non-isane jurisdictions don't count such copies, arising from normal use of the work, as copyright-relevant.
Copying to RAM to run a program is quite equivalent to copying to brain to use a book. The book is completely useless unless accessible to brain by way of photons and electrical signals. The program is completely useless accessible to CPU by way of magnetic fields, electronic signals and charges stored in RAM-cells.
Again; I recognize that insane jurisdictions exist. And I acknowledge that eulas -may- be relevant in some of them.
Luckily though, it's not the norm.
You're just being silly.
First, the device is designed to slide out easily (and painlessly for the female) once it has attached to a penis. Just insert and withdraw any other random object.
Second, the device is described as being easy and quick for the female to insert or remove, if so it'll be aproximately equally easy for anyone else to do. Keep in mind that this is somebody being raped. "remove that thing or I blow your head off" will likely do the trick perfectly fine.
As for me being familiar with female anatomy, that's so wrong it's funny. How about a major in biology, and a mother who is a midwife and has literally shelf-meters on such for the theoretical part and having 3 kids for the practical part ?
I'm aware of that. However you can't have a "license" take -AWAY- rights that I would otherwise have and expect me to be bound by the license without ever having agreed to it.
..." is invalid, or more precisely, you can ignore it, because even without a license you're allowed to do that.
..." is completely irrelevant, that is an activity that is -already- allowed, you don't need any license for it.
That is the point. For example, the GPL gives you a right that you wouldn't normally have (the right to copy and redistribute), and stipulates certain conditions you need to comply with if you want those rights.
If you do -NOT- want those rights, however, you're free to completely ignore the GPL and simply stick within the limits of copyright-law.
The "license" on the inside of shrink-wrapped book saying "You are not authorised to read this book aloud unless you
If the same license said: "You may publicly perform this book, under the following conditions...." it *would* however be relevant. It gives you rigths that you don't normally have. If you -want- those rights, you must comply with the terms offered (or negotiate different terms with the copyright-holder), however you're -still- free to ignore the text if you don't plan to publicly perform the work.
So, a "license" on a game, stating that "you may not reverse-engineer this game
Somebody is reading too much into the "batteries are like buckets of electricity" analogy we all got back in school. Real batteries don't work quite like that.
Yes they do. If you have three identical, batteries, all fully charged, then each of them will hold aproximately the same amount of energy. If you drain one of the 3 without touching the other 2 you have now drained 1/3rd of your available energy.
It's annoying though. I much prefer the alternative being presented here: how about a phone that detects when charge starts to get low (say 25% left) and that responds by shifting the pitch of ringtones and beeps downwards and slowing them down ?
Sorta how a old-fashioned tape-player that is almost out of juice sounds.