Apparently whatever script they use to check for Flash can tell that you have Flash installed, but doesn't check to make sure that the Flash plugin was actually able to load, or revert to the gif if it didn't.
Oh, please. The reason you'll never see GMail incorporate "trustworthy, cilent-side" encryption/decryption is because GMail could never incorporate "trustworthy, client-side" encryption/decryption.
Trustworthy client-side encryption/decryption can, and will always, only be possible vie a third-party non-GMail plugin.
If GMail is doing the encryption/decryption client-side, you'll have to trust GMail not to transmit the unencrypted data right back to Google. You're in the absurd position of handing someone unencrypted data and telling them "here, I don't want you to have this data, so please encrypt it".
Yea, he's an actual MD... or at least I thought he was. I'll double check next time I'm in the office.
He was, quite probably, a "Doctor of Chiropractic". This is not the same thing as a "Medical Doctor". An MD is board-certified by reputable medical institutions; a DC is certified by a Chiropractic College. They're their own thing, and they don't have to meet any of the standards set by the medical community, which leaves them free to practice whatever quackery they can successfully foist on people.
Note that I'm not saying that Chiropractors can't help in some cases. I recognize that they can, in certain cases, but all-too-often Chiropractic is toted as a cure-all. It's up to the patient to figure out what percentage of it is pure hogwash, and what may actually help them.
When I loaded the demo page with Flash disabled, I saw this. (The front page does require flash for the video presentation, which isn't terribly surprising.)
I'd add to that: go to your bank. It's likely to be free to account holders, but most banks will charge a fee for notary service if you don't have an account there.
Because I somehow managed to lose my license without driving drunk, recklessly, getting involved in any accidents, or harming anyone. My crime was offending the state's ego. It seems they take great offense to the idea that someone might be driving around out there when their license is suspended or revoked.
Now tell us how you managed to lose your license. Hint: you had already lost your license if it was already suspended or revoked.
You lost it for 6 months longer by driving after you'd lost it the first time, but you haven't told us how you lost it in the first place. I'm assuming it was for something more substantial than "offending the state's ego".
No, you only need to be able to reach them at or before the next exit. So the expectation you have should be: call, leave a voicemail message, and they pull off at the next exit or rest stop to park, check your message and, if the situation requires it, return the call for further instruction.
They can't do anything between here and the next exit anyway. U-turns are illegal on most highways.
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
I actually bothered to look up that source - and I don't mean the graph on Wikipedia. It looks like this.
Basically (after finding a very slight correlation between drivers who had been drinking and drivers who were speeding - although the correlation was only a few km/h): they tried to take drivers who were both drunk and speeding, and then statistically explain how much of their risk was due to speeding, and how much was due to the alcohol, based on the accident rates of non-intoxicated people who were also speeding.
IMHO it's not a very convincing study. There were too many variables and it's not at all obvious to me that their assumption was valid. The effects of speeding and alcohol together may be cumlatively worse than the combined total of the two.
Guess what, no it isn't. It's produced by injecting an animal with enough venom to produce an immune response, then harvesting the immune cells which target the venom. It's as much homeopathy as vaccination, which is to say, it's not.
TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too
You can't text without looking at the phone? I can.
Sure, I have to glance at what I punched in before I send it to make sure I said what I intended to say, but it's not hard. Do you look at the keyboard while you type too?
The Christian New Testament gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew describe an incident in which Jesus meets a man, or men, possessed by demons who, when asked what their name is, respond:
"My name is Legion, for we are many."
(In Latin) "Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus."
The quotation has been referenced and alluded to many times throughout history in popular culture.
...
On Wednesday, January 23, 2008 the Internet-based group "Anonymous" released statements on YouTube and via a press release, outlining what they call a "War on Scientology". During Their YouTube video they state "If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.".
It's obviously an intentional reference to the New Testament.
Lets go through some male archetypes just for fun... would John Wayne be bothered by a pat down? Nope. Clint Eastwood? Navy Seals? Nope. Astronauts? Nope. How about Conan the Barbarian?... Nope.
That's strange. You appear to have repeatedly misspelled "would have killed the bastard".
The spots on my sunroof are very prominent, but my windshield and side windows don't show spots that are nearly as obvious (they're also not tinted). Is that because the factory is more careful with windshields and side windows?
The sunroof is horizontal. Gravity causes shear stresses in the glass. Windows are relatively vertical and gravity causes mostly compressive stresses in them. Most materials endure compression much better than shear.
Try pushing upward in the middle of it and see if the spots change.
What was the glass going to be used for that you wanted to check for residual stress?
I'm not GP, but IIRC a lot of electronic tubes and bulbs are made from hand-blown glass globes.
Never mind - you were right. No matter how far away it is, the back of the pyramid will always span a smaller arc than the front of it, so it will always be obscured by the front.
Well, she was technically correct - at some point the pyramid would be so far away that it would span less than the distance between your eyes. Then you could see all 4 corners (and 3 sides), although it would be too small to make out much detail at that distance. The curvature of the earth might also get in the way first.
my disk does contain encrypted files for which I don't know the keys... They range from the simple newspaper substitution-cipher puzzles to the famous puzzles that have been around for decades without anyone publishing a solution. I have some of them on my disk right now
You're overthinking it. The correct defense for that would be, "Those files aren't mine; they are bit-for-bit identical copies of publicly available files found _____. To the extent of my knowledge they contain nothing illegal, but I never found the passwords. If you want it, you will need to find the person who originally created the file and ask him/her."
If your intent in destroying it is preventing it from being used in court against you, it's destruction of evidence.
If you accidentally destroy it, there's no foul. Knowing that the feds might get nasty if they ever wanted a password, and zeroing them specifically to avoid any such nasty encounters, is destruction of evidence.
About the only thing he could legally do is mail the files to the feds, along with a signed statement to the effect that he does not have the password to decrypt their contents. Obviously, this would be pretty stupid, although there is a chance that they'd assume you really do have nothing to hide and leave you alone. And it could come in handy if they ever did grow an interest in your encrypted files - show them that the file hasn't changed and they weren't interested in it then, so why now?
Or, just continue doing what he's doing now - he's withholding evidence, but he's protected because he's not under any legal obligation to testify against himself.
No, a true scientific mind will actually understand Occam's Razor.
The razor cuts thus:
Having proven by much experimentation: C(ause) -> E(ffect) logically, this is also true: C(ause) & U(nrelated) -> E(ffect) Occam's Razor smacks you hand right there and tells you to get rid of U(nrelated). It has nothing to do with E(ffect), even though the statement itself is logically correct. All it does is muddy the waters. Your theory should be focused on C -> E, not C & U -> E.
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with your idea that "overly complex explanations are false". It simply states that if an explanation is complete (it completely describes all known relevant data), nothing more should be added to it.
the person putting the bolt in should have asked his superviser... the superviser might have said,"Just put it in the way way you always do. I am sure that it will not make a difference."... Or they may have even taken it to a production engineer and he might have not seen any reason to not put it in the standard way
The car analogy is any one of the dozens of models of car which underwent little-to-no change from year to year for long periods of time and then abruptly introduced a fancy new feature that requires completely different knowledge, perhaps even completely different tools, to work on. Mechanics constantly have to figure out problems such as "when was whiz-bang-zip introduced? is a '97 model going have it?"
It is human nature to ask why. Most people will promptly forget your explanation and simply do as they were originally instructed, satisfied merely in knowing there was a good reason for doing it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently whatever script they use to check for Flash can tell that you have Flash installed, but doesn't check to make sure that the Flash plugin was actually able to load, or revert to the gif if it didn't.
Oh, please. The reason you'll never see GMail incorporate "trustworthy, cilent-side" encryption/decryption is because GMail could never incorporate "trustworthy, client-side" encryption/decryption.
Trustworthy client-side encryption/decryption can, and will always, only be possible vie a third-party non-GMail plugin.
If GMail is doing the encryption/decryption client-side, you'll have to trust GMail not to transmit the unencrypted data right back to Google. You're in the absurd position of handing someone unencrypted data and telling them "here, I don't want you to have this data, so please encrypt it".
Yea, he's an actual MD... or at least I thought he was. I'll double check next time I'm in the office.
He was, quite probably, a "Doctor of Chiropractic". This is not the same thing as a "Medical Doctor". An MD is board-certified by reputable medical institutions; a DC is certified by a Chiropractic College. They're their own thing, and they don't have to meet any of the standards set by the medical community, which leaves them free to practice whatever quackery they can successfully foist on people.
Note that I'm not saying that Chiropractors can't help in some cases. I recognize that they can, in certain cases, but all-too-often Chiropractic is toted as a cure-all. It's up to the patient to figure out what percentage of it is pure hogwash, and what may actually help them.
When I loaded the demo page with Flash disabled, I saw this. (The front page does require flash for the video presentation, which isn't terribly surprising.)
I'd add to that: go to your bank. It's likely to be free to account holders, but most banks will charge a fee for notary service if you don't have an account there.
Because I somehow managed to lose my license without driving drunk, recklessly, getting involved in any accidents, or harming anyone. My crime was offending the state's ego. It seems they take great offense to the idea that someone might be driving around out there when their license is suspended or revoked.
Now tell us how you managed to lose your license. Hint: you had already lost your license if it was already suspended or revoked.
You lost it for 6 months longer by driving after you'd lost it the first time, but you haven't told us how you lost it in the first place. I'm assuming it was for something more substantial than "offending the state's ego".
There is no hardship license.
And that's the real problem.
No, you only need to be able to reach them at or before the next exit. So the expectation you have should be: call, leave a voicemail message, and they pull off at the next exit or rest stop to park, check your message and, if the situation requires it, return the call for further instruction.
They can't do anything between here and the next exit anyway. U-turns are illegal on most highways.
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control ... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
I actually bothered to look up that source - and I don't mean the graph on Wikipedia. It looks like this.
Basically (after finding a very slight correlation between drivers who had been drinking and drivers who were speeding - although the correlation was only a few km/h): they tried to take drivers who were both drunk and speeding, and then statistically explain how much of their risk was due to speeding, and how much was due to the alcohol, based on the accident rates of non-intoxicated people who were also speeding.
IMHO it's not a very convincing study. There were too many variables and it's not at all obvious to me that their assumption was valid. The effects of speeding and alcohol together may be cumlatively worse than the combined total of the two.
Guess what, no it isn't. It's produced by injecting an animal with enough venom to produce an immune response, then harvesting the immune cells which target the venom. It's as much homeopathy as vaccination, which is to say, it's not.
TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too
You can't text without looking at the phone? I can.
Sure, I have to glance at what I punched in before I send it to make sure I said what I intended to say, but it's not hard. Do you look at the keyboard while you type too?
Science hasn't proven that unicorns don't exist. But that doesn't offer ANY evidence that they DO.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025793/The-horned-deer-solve-mystery-unicorn.html
Perhaps you should go edit the Wikipedia article, then.
The Christian New Testament gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew describe an incident in which Jesus meets a man, or men, possessed by demons who, when asked what their name is, respond:
"My name is Legion, for we are many."
(In Latin) "Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus."
The quotation has been referenced and alluded to many times throughout history in popular culture.
...
On Wednesday, January 23, 2008 the Internet-based group "Anonymous" released statements on YouTube and via a press release, outlining what they call a "War on Scientology". During Their YouTube video they state "If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.".
It's obviously an intentional reference to the New Testament.
Now if they could just make it also resemble a Swiss Army Knife, that would be pure win.
Lets go through some male archetypes just for fun... would John Wayne be bothered by a pat down? Nope. Clint Eastwood? Navy Seals? Nope. Astronauts? Nope. How about Conan the Barbarian?... Nope.
That's strange. You appear to have repeatedly misspelled "would have killed the bastard".
The spots on my sunroof are very prominent, but my windshield and side windows don't show spots that are nearly as obvious (they're also not tinted). Is that because the factory is more careful with windshields and side windows?
The sunroof is horizontal. Gravity causes shear stresses in the glass. Windows are relatively vertical and gravity causes mostly compressive stresses in them. Most materials endure compression much better than shear.
Try pushing upward in the middle of it and see if the spots change.
What was the glass going to be used for that you wanted to check for residual stress?
I'm not GP, but IIRC a lot of electronic tubes and bulbs are made from hand-blown glass globes.
Never mind - you were right. No matter how far away it is, the back of the pyramid will always span a smaller arc than the front of it, so it will always be obscured by the front.
If you try to ban cell phones in schools, 99.9% of the kids will go catatonic on the spot and the other 0.1% will burn the place down.
FTFY.
Well, she was technically correct - at some point the pyramid would be so far away that it would span less than the distance between your eyes. Then you could see all 4 corners (and 3 sides), although it would be too small to make out much detail at that distance. The curvature of the earth might also get in the way first.
Not particularly useful, but still...
my disk does contain encrypted files for which I don't know the keys ... They range from the simple newspaper substitution-cipher puzzles to the famous puzzles that have been around for decades without anyone publishing a solution. I have some of them on my disk right now
You're overthinking it. The correct defense for that would be, "Those files aren't mine; they are bit-for-bit identical copies of publicly available files found _____. To the extent of my knowledge they contain nothing illegal, but I never found the passwords. If you want it, you will need to find the person who originally created the file and ask him/her."
If your intent in destroying it is preventing it from being used in court against you, it's destruction of evidence.
If you accidentally destroy it, there's no foul. Knowing that the feds might get nasty if they ever wanted a password, and zeroing them specifically to avoid any such nasty encounters, is destruction of evidence.
About the only thing he could legally do is mail the files to the feds, along with a signed statement to the effect that he does not have the password to decrypt their contents. Obviously, this would be pretty stupid, although there is a chance that they'd assume you really do have nothing to hide and leave you alone. And it could come in handy if they ever did grow an interest in your encrypted files - show them that the file hasn't changed and they weren't interested in it then, so why now?
Or, just continue doing what he's doing now - he's withholding evidence, but he's protected because he's not under any legal obligation to testify against himself.
No, a true scientific mind will actually understand Occam's Razor.
The razor cuts thus:
Having proven by much experimentation:
C(ause) -> E(ffect)
logically, this is also true:
C(ause) & U(nrelated) -> E(ffect)
Occam's Razor smacks you hand right there and tells you to get rid of U(nrelated). It has nothing to do with E(ffect), even though the statement itself is logically correct. All it does is muddy the waters. Your theory should be focused on C -> E, not C & U -> E.
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with your idea that "overly complex explanations are false". It simply states that if an explanation is complete (it completely describes all known relevant data), nothing more should be added to it.
the person putting the bolt in should have asked his superviser ... the superviser might have said,"Just put it in the way way you always do. I am sure that it will not make a difference." ... Or they may have even taken it to a production engineer and he might have not seen any reason to not put it in the standard way
At their own peril. Or, they could learn from past mistakes.
The proper technical term for it is "pronoun hell".
The car analogy is any one of the dozens of models of car which underwent little-to-no change from year to year for long periods of time and then abruptly introduced a fancy new feature that requires completely different knowledge, perhaps even completely different tools, to work on. Mechanics constantly have to figure out problems such as "when was whiz-bang-zip introduced? is a '97 model going have it?"
I don't hear them moaning and bitching about it.
It is human nature to need to know why.
It is human nature to ask why. Most people will promptly forget your explanation and simply do as they were originally instructed, satisfied merely in knowing there was a good reason for doing it that way.