The whole point is that a change in social dynamics (less monogamy, more responsible promiscuity) can lead to counterintuitive outcomes. That is...an increase in overall levels of promiscuity leading to a decrease in disease transmission rates.
That has nothing at all to do with less monogamy and everything to do with more responsibility by the promiscuous people.
Monogamous does not, actually, mean responsible. It is a total red herring, tossed in to be a bit sensational and raise eyebrows. I figured that was pretty obvious. Down towards the end he drops the monogamy social dynamic and talks a bit about how to give incentive to the responsible, without giving it to the irresponsible.... subsidize condoms.
Well... yes, it was a red herring. I didn't read that far. Perhaps that's my fault.
If the work the laptop needed to sort it was done by a shop, that shop should have found the LoJack software and checked if it was the customer's
Found the LoJack software, yes, they should have, but of course it's pre-installed on most computers and the process runs even if the user doesn't register for LoJack monitoring. So finding the software means little if anything.
How would the shop check to see if it's the customers, though, or check to see if it's been reported stolen?
He isn't suggesting that people be irresponsible and fuck everyone they meet, he is saying.... we need a lot more people who are responsible and take on the occasional new lover, in a responsible manner.
There are clubs for that sort of thing, I hear. He doesn't really need any more people, he just needs to be responsible himself, because no matter how widespread the problem is, you're pretty much able to avoid contracting the disease simply by being responsible.
Responsible is unrelated to monogamous. Someone who is responsible is unlikely to contract the disease, whether they're monogamous or not. Claiming that monogamy is to blame for irresponsibility is unfounded. And saying that promiscuity is the solution to irresponsibility is just adding fuel to the fire... unless you deal with the irresponsibility you'll just make matters worse.
The larger number of responsible people (washing hands, using condoms, getting tested) would dillute the population of irresponsible people who don't wash their hands, use condoms, get tested, whatever being responsible means in the context.
That is a reasonable approach to controlling AIDS. The one proposed in the article you linked to was not.
[monogamy] is the simple and elegant solution that would work great if only you could just get everybody to buy in, completely, for their entire lives. Good luck with that, its never happened, never will.
Oh come on. I'll grant you that it's not "widely practiced", even that it's not as widely practiced as people claim, but I won't grant you that it's "never happened, never will".
Most states have said you can record as long as at least 1 person knows they are being recorded
Not quite. One-party wiretap laws require one party to the conversation to know they're being recorded. If she truly didn't know that the laptop was stolen, she was justified in believing that it was her device, and therefore in believing that the only two parties to her conversation were herself and her boyfriend. That is why she is claiming it's a violation of her privacy.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the pictures should be available to the police and to the court. But they did violate her privacy by revealing to the public the nature of the pictures that they found, after it was determined that she hadn't stolen it. It required a gross breach of professionalism for us to ever learn about their existence.
DownThemAll might have triggered that by trying to open 2 or more simultaneous connections. Try setting it to use only one connection per download for that site.
It could have been a single mutation that changed a benign, symbiotic relationship into one that spread rapidly and killed its host. Or it could be that a small fraction of the population are carriers of the disease (having it, and spreading it to others, but experiencing no symptoms). Or it could be that other species are carriers of the disease (either being affected less severely, or having no symptoms at all), but it's deadly in one particular species. Or, since viruses typically can only infect one species, it could be that one species carries a common, benign variant of the disease, but a mutation gives it the ability to jump to a different species in which it's deadly.
You've got to be kidding me. He's blaming the AIDS epidemic on the people who don't have it? Because they're not going out and screwing random people in bars? Which would almost certainly result in them contracting AIDS, eventually, if they keep it up long enough?
Because that's exactly how the AIDS epidemic started. It started slow, when few people had it. In spite of the fact that a small fraction of the population had it, it still spread, until it became what it is today. His solution is temporary, short-sighted, and reveals profound ignorance.
Bad analogy time. That's like a guy with a flu blaming people who don't have the flu for not sneezing on people more often, so you'd be statistically less likely to catch the flu if you got sneezed on. That's not going to stop the flu from spreading. The only way to stop it is to keep infected people from infecting uninfected people, i.e. stop HIV-positive people from spreading the disease to uninfected partners. (And they really shouldn't be spreading their particular strain to other HIV-positive people, either, since being infected with two different strains pretty much means you go downhill quickly. At least from what I've read.)
Even worse analogy time. It's like saying that the way to solve an epidemic of deaths caused by Russian roulette is by spreading the same number of bullets into more guns, so that more people who didn't play can participate.
And I don't think he knows the meaning of "monogamy". It doesn't mean going out to bars and screwing random people less. It means going out to bars and screwing random people never.
AFAIK, speeches given by people holding public office in the Federal government would be considered "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" and therefore cannot be copyrighted: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government".
However, I believe that a recording of the speech still could be copyrighted by whoever recorded it.
Note that this does not apply to state or local governments, only to the Federal (United States) government.
It's perfectly safe and legal, in the absence of lawbreakers. I guess I should have put that in my original message
Nope. Still wrong: if everyone else happens going exactly the speed limit (which is not breaking the law), slower than the speed limit is also slower than the prevalent speed and therefore it is not "perfectly safe". There is no way for you to spin your statement to make it remotely close to correct. And you're still in some make-believe world where other drivers do what you want them to. Claims that hold true in your little fantasy don't translate into real life. Sorry.
Feel free to find a study that disproves illusory superiority of driving ability.
Sampling bias, plain and simple. Bad drivers stand out more, and therefore seem more prevalent. If half of the drivers are below-average (median), chances are excellent that I'll notice one or two really bad drivers every time I get into my car and go somewhere. Chances are also good that I won't notice the really good drivers, because they're not driving dangerously. Thus I end up thinking I am above average, because I only remembered bad drivers, who I am better than.
Not to mention that they're asking people to rule on the "median", which is a concept foreign to just about everyone who isn't a mathematician or statistician. Your average person is going to give you more of a mean; the same sampling bias I just described will lead them to think since they're much better than the (few) bad drivers they noticed, they must be better than average because those drivers skew the scale in their minds. "Median" is defined as the middle; you'd be hard-pressed to get someone to give you a true median unless they had the numbers and knew how to crunch them. Expecting to get an accurate answer from a survey when you ask someone to subjectively give you their opinion of the median is borderline ridiculous.
Yes, yes, I understand that at a fundamental level, when a car is in gear and going downhill or using momentum (say a sudden acceleration, then complete lift of the throttle) the ECU doesn't apply gas for that very brief moment.
The whole point all along (going way back up the comment thread) was that downshifting to engine brake doesn't use more fuel. It is one of those "very brief moments" when the ECU doesn't have to apply gas, because the car is in gear and you're not using the gas pedal to indicate that you want it to. Depending on the angle of the grade, it may or may not slow you down, so you could coast down a steep grade without using any gas at all. Not for any mythical 500-mile stretches, but not because of anything fundamental, simply because the 500-mile downhill stretches don't exist.
Oh, I'd heard of the "I Have a Dream" speech all right, but I wouldn't have known his relatives were greedy money-grubbing leeches, wouldn't have known that he basically plagiarized large portions of his thesis, and wouldn't have known that someone else had delivered a speech very much like his "I Have a Dream" speech before he had. I also probably wouldn't have heard about this.
Set your posting style to "Plain Old Text". White space is (mostly) converted into HTML automatically, and <p> and <br> tags work as expected.
There is a CSS bug which causes <strong> and <em> to have no effect unless every parent comment is expanded. I gave up on them and use <b> and <i> instead.
it takes gas to keep an engine running. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you but internal combustion engines need gas to stay on
No, they don't. They only need something to crank the engine. You've never started a vehicle with a bad starter or dead battery by putting it in gear and rolling it down a hill? Okay, I realize you'd need a manual transmission to do that and nobody has one of those anymore, but you weren't even familiar with the fact that it's possible?
Once the engine is turning all it has to do is put gas in the cylinders. But while something else is turning the engine there's absolutely no reason that it needs gas in the cylinders, until it starts slowing down.
All that does is allow MORE gas to go into the engine. It's not an on/off switch.
If the car is sitting on level ground idling, yes, it needs to use gas to keep the engine running. But while it's moving it doesn't. Its motion keeps the engine turning.
That didn't disprove my citation. In fact, you just proved my point: driving faster or slower than the prevailing speed (not the speed limit) is dangerous. Your original claim was "Driving below the speed limit is perfectly safe and legal." If the prevailing speed is at or above the speed limit (which it usually is), driving below it is not "perfectly safe".
And you can't possibly think that one study (from almost 40 years ago - 1972!) would disprove the consistent results of "federal and state studies" anyway. You're just cherry-picking.
By the way, the conclusion of the study recommended "speed limits set at the 85th and 15th percentile speed, and enforcement at the 95th and 5th percentile". May I remind you that you said earlier:
The 85th percentile rule is a bad way to set speed limits
You can't cherry-pick a study, use its findings to support your theories, and then claim that its conclusion was entirely bogus.
Are other, law-abiding road users (this excludes tailgaters and speeders) more in danger from you driving below the speed limit or from you driving above the speed limit?
No. Why should I exclude them? And your criteria here is "law-abiding"? Then you should also exclude people who are uninsured, driving stolen vehicles, haven't renewed their state tags or whose safety inspection isn't current, or who are driving with revoked or expired driving privileges. They're not law-abiding. Just how exactly am I supposed to tell who around me is law-abiding and who isn't? And (no, I'm not going to forget about myself either) I don't want to have my day ruined by anyone, law abiding or not, and I'll drive in such a way that minimizes the chances of that happening.
And you can drop "tailgating" from your list of exclusions. Tailgating is not illegal; driving "too close" is illegal, which requires them to actually hit me before the law will step in and say "yes, that was illegal". I am not a police officer and I have no authority to say someone isn't law-abiding because I think they're following me too closely, and I'm sure as hell not going to try to cause them to hit me to prove that they were following me too closely. My only recourse is to put additional space between me and them, either by speeding up or by letting them pass, and try at all costs to ensure that I don't have to stop suddenly in front of them by paying extra care to the other vehicles and to the road ahead of me, to the extent of my limited means of doing so. It might mean swerving into an empty lane instead of stopping sharply to avoid an obstacle. That is called "driving defensively".
Anyway, from basic physics it is obvious that a greater speed differential causes more danger, therefore they are in more danger if I drive significantly faster or slower than the prevailing speed of traffic, regardless of the speed limit. Thus if most of the other traffic is going 5 MPH over the speed limit, that is how fast you should also drive. This will minimize the danger to yourself and the drivers around you. It's not your duty or right to punish the drivers around you for failing to obey all of the traffic laws.
Only if they're put into tangible form (which of course isn't limited to paper, but would include CD, DVD, VHS, cassette, etc.). An audio or visual performance that is never recorded can't be copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the one about the Ugandan who's trying to build a space shuttle.
Is September 1st the Japanese equivalent of April Fools Day or something?
The whole point is that a change in social dynamics (less monogamy, more responsible promiscuity) can lead to counterintuitive outcomes. That is...an increase in overall levels of promiscuity leading to a decrease in disease transmission rates.
That has nothing at all to do with less monogamy and everything to do with more responsibility by the promiscuous people.
Monogamous does not, actually, mean responsible. It is a total red herring, tossed in to be a bit sensational and raise eyebrows. I figured that was pretty obvious. Down towards the end he drops the monogamy social dynamic and talks a bit about how to give incentive to the responsible, without giving it to the irresponsible.... subsidize condoms.
Well... yes, it was a red herring. I didn't read that far. Perhaps that's my fault.
If the work the laptop needed to sort it was done by a shop, that shop should have found the LoJack software and checked if it was the customer's
Found the LoJack software, yes, they should have, but of course it's pre-installed on most computers and the process runs even if the user doesn't register for LoJack monitoring. So finding the software means little if anything.
How would the shop check to see if it's the customers, though, or check to see if it's been reported stolen?
Yes, we know cops are the fonts of wisdom in our society.
So they're sort of like a lexicon of insight?
He isn't suggesting that people be irresponsible and fuck everyone they meet, he is saying.... we need a lot more people who are responsible and take on the occasional new lover, in a responsible manner.
There are clubs for that sort of thing, I hear. He doesn't really need any more people, he just needs to be responsible himself, because no matter how widespread the problem is, you're pretty much able to avoid contracting the disease simply by being responsible.
Responsible is unrelated to monogamous. Someone who is responsible is unlikely to contract the disease, whether they're monogamous or not. Claiming that monogamy is to blame for irresponsibility is unfounded. And saying that promiscuity is the solution to irresponsibility is just adding fuel to the fire... unless you deal with the irresponsibility you'll just make matters worse.
The larger number of responsible people (washing hands, using condoms, getting tested) would dillute the population of irresponsible people who don't wash their hands, use condoms, get tested, whatever being responsible means in the context.
That is a reasonable approach to controlling AIDS. The one proposed in the article you linked to was not.
[monogamy] is the simple and elegant solution that would work great if only you could just get everybody to buy in, completely, for their entire lives. Good luck with that, its never happened, never will.
Oh come on. I'll grant you that it's not "widely practiced", even that it's not as widely practiced as people claim, but I won't grant you that it's "never happened, never will".
Most states have said you can record as long as at least 1 person knows they are being recorded
Not quite. One-party wiretap laws require one party to the conversation to know they're being recorded. If she truly didn't know that the laptop was stolen, she was justified in believing that it was her device, and therefore in believing that the only two parties to her conversation were herself and her boyfriend. That is why she is claiming it's a violation of her privacy.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the pictures should be available to the police and to the court. But they did violate her privacy by revealing to the public the nature of the pictures that they found, after it was determined that she hadn't stolen it. It required a gross breach of professionalism for us to ever learn about their existence.
&lt;
DownThemAll might have triggered that by trying to open 2 or more simultaneous connections. Try setting it to use only one connection per download for that site.
It could have been a single mutation that changed a benign, symbiotic relationship into one that spread rapidly and killed its host. Or it could be that a small fraction of the population are carriers of the disease (having it, and spreading it to others, but experiencing no symptoms). Or it could be that other species are carriers of the disease (either being affected less severely, or having no symptoms at all), but it's deadly in one particular species. Or, since viruses typically can only infect one species, it could be that one species carries a common, benign variant of the disease, but a mutation gives it the ability to jump to a different species in which it's deadly.
*facepalm*
You've got to be kidding me. He's blaming the AIDS epidemic on the people who don't have it? Because they're not going out and screwing random people in bars? Which would almost certainly result in them contracting AIDS, eventually, if they keep it up long enough?
Because that's exactly how the AIDS epidemic started. It started slow, when few people had it. In spite of the fact that a small fraction of the population had it, it still spread, until it became what it is today. His solution is temporary, short-sighted, and reveals profound ignorance.
Bad analogy time. That's like a guy with a flu blaming people who don't have the flu for not sneezing on people more often, so you'd be statistically less likely to catch the flu if you got sneezed on. That's not going to stop the flu from spreading. The only way to stop it is to keep infected people from infecting uninfected people, i.e. stop HIV-positive people from spreading the disease to uninfected partners. (And they really shouldn't be spreading their particular strain to other HIV-positive people, either, since being infected with two different strains pretty much means you go downhill quickly. At least from what I've read.)
Even worse analogy time. It's like saying that the way to solve an epidemic of deaths caused by Russian roulette is by spreading the same number of bullets into more guns, so that more people who didn't play can participate.
And I don't think he knows the meaning of "monogamy". It doesn't mean going out to bars and screwing random people less. It means going out to bars and screwing random people never.
Tell me again how the ISO file is more convenient than any of the others?
Dare I say it...
AutoPlay?
AFAIK, speeches given by people holding public office in the Federal government would be considered "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" and therefore cannot be copyrighted: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government".
However, I believe that a recording of the speech still could be copyrighted by whoever recorded it.
Note that this does not apply to state or local governments, only to the Federal (United States) government.
It's perfectly safe and legal, in the absence of lawbreakers. I guess I should have put that in my original message
Nope. Still wrong: if everyone else happens going exactly the speed limit (which is not breaking the law), slower than the speed limit is also slower than the prevalent speed and therefore it is not "perfectly safe". There is no way for you to spin your statement to make it remotely close to correct. And you're still in some make-believe world where other drivers do what you want them to. Claims that hold true in your little fantasy don't translate into real life. Sorry.
Feel free to find a study that disproves illusory superiority of driving ability.
Sampling bias, plain and simple. Bad drivers stand out more, and therefore seem more prevalent. If half of the drivers are below-average (median), chances are excellent that I'll notice one or two really bad drivers every time I get into my car and go somewhere. Chances are also good that I won't notice the really good drivers, because they're not driving dangerously. Thus I end up thinking I am above average, because I only remembered bad drivers, who I am better than.
Not to mention that they're asking people to rule on the "median", which is a concept foreign to just about everyone who isn't a mathematician or statistician. Your average person is going to give you more of a mean; the same sampling bias I just described will lead them to think since they're much better than the (few) bad drivers they noticed, they must be better than average because those drivers skew the scale in their minds. "Median" is defined as the middle; you'd be hard-pressed to get someone to give you a true median unless they had the numbers and knew how to crunch them. Expecting to get an accurate answer from a survey when you ask someone to subjectively give you their opinion of the median is borderline ridiculous.
If you went out of your way to Disable Client-Side DNS Caching, that's hardly something you can blame Windows for...
Zip, 7-Zip, and RAR all support encryption. WinRAR uses AES-128, and zip and 7z files support AES-256 (at least that's what 7-Zip tells me).
Yes, yes, I understand that at a fundamental level, when a car is in gear and going downhill or using momentum (say a sudden acceleration, then complete lift of the throttle) the ECU doesn't apply gas for that very brief moment.
The whole point all along (going way back up the comment thread) was that downshifting to engine brake doesn't use more fuel. It is one of those "very brief moments" when the ECU doesn't have to apply gas, because the car is in gear and you're not using the gas pedal to indicate that you want it to. Depending on the angle of the grade, it may or may not slow you down, so you could coast down a steep grade without using any gas at all. Not for any mythical 500-mile stretches, but not because of anything fundamental, simply because the 500-mile downhill stretches don't exist.
Oh, I'd heard of the "I Have a Dream" speech all right, but I wouldn't have known his relatives were greedy money-grubbing leeches, wouldn't have known that he basically plagiarized large portions of his thesis, and wouldn't have known that someone else had delivered a speech very much like his "I Have a Dream" speech before he had. I also probably wouldn't have heard about this.
Set your posting style to "Plain Old Text". White space is (mostly) converted into HTML automatically, and <p> and <br> tags work as expected.
There is a CSS bug which causes <strong> and <em> to have no effect unless every parent comment is expanded. I gave up on them and use <b> and <i> instead.
it takes gas to keep an engine running. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you but internal combustion engines need gas to stay on
No, they don't. They only need something to crank the engine. You've never started a vehicle with a bad starter or dead battery by putting it in gear and rolling it down a hill? Okay, I realize you'd need a manual transmission to do that and nobody has one of those anymore, but you weren't even familiar with the fact that it's possible?
Once the engine is turning all it has to do is put gas in the cylinders. But while something else is turning the engine there's absolutely no reason that it needs gas in the cylinders, until it starts slowing down.
All that does is allow MORE gas to go into the engine. It's not an on/off switch.
If the car is sitting on level ground idling, yes, it needs to use gas to keep the engine running. But while it's moving it doesn't. Its motion keeps the engine turning.
That didn't disprove my citation. In fact, you just proved my point: driving faster or slower than the prevailing speed (not the speed limit) is dangerous. Your original claim was "Driving below the speed limit is perfectly safe and legal." If the prevailing speed is at or above the speed limit (which it usually is), driving below it is not "perfectly safe".
And you can't possibly think that one study (from almost 40 years ago - 1972!) would disprove the consistent results of "federal and state studies" anyway. You're just cherry-picking.
By the way, the conclusion of the study recommended "speed limits set at the 85th and 15th percentile speed, and enforcement at the 95th and 5th percentile". May I remind you that you said earlier:
The 85th percentile rule is a bad way to set speed limits
You can't cherry-pick a study, use its findings to support your theories, and then claim that its conclusion was entirely bogus.
Are other, law-abiding road users (this excludes tailgaters and speeders) more in danger from you driving below the speed limit or from you driving above the speed limit?
No. Why should I exclude them? And your criteria here is "law-abiding"? Then you should also exclude people who are uninsured, driving stolen vehicles, haven't renewed their state tags or whose safety inspection isn't current, or who are driving with revoked or expired driving privileges. They're not law-abiding. Just how exactly am I supposed to tell who around me is law-abiding and who isn't? And (no, I'm not going to forget about myself either) I don't want to have my day ruined by anyone, law abiding or not, and I'll drive in such a way that minimizes the chances of that happening.
And you can drop "tailgating" from your list of exclusions. Tailgating is not illegal; driving "too close" is illegal, which requires them to actually hit me before the law will step in and say "yes, that was illegal". I am not a police officer and I have no authority to say someone isn't law-abiding because I think they're following me too closely, and I'm sure as hell not going to try to cause them to hit me to prove that they were following me too closely. My only recourse is to put additional space between me and them, either by speeding up or by letting them pass, and try at all costs to ensure that I don't have to stop suddenly in front of them by paying extra care to the other vehicles and to the road ahead of me, to the extent of my limited means of doing so. It might mean swerving into an empty lane instead of stopping sharply to avoid an obstacle. That is called "driving defensively".
Anyway, from basic physics it is obvious that a greater speed differential causes more danger, therefore they are in more danger if I drive significantly faster or slower than the prevailing speed of traffic, regardless of the speed limit. Thus if most of the other traffic is going 5 MPH over the speed limit, that is how fast you should also drive. This will minimize the danger to yourself and the drivers around you. It's not your duty or right to punish the drivers around you for failing to obey all of the traffic laws.
Not a problem. Every program has at least one bug, so you'd naturally start numbering them from 0.
Only if they're put into tangible form (which of course isn't limited to paper, but would include CD, DVD, VHS, cassette, etc.). An audio or visual performance that is never recorded can't be copyrighted.