Hmm, I was going to congratulate you for some nice trolling there, but judging by your previous Slashdot comments, you really do seem to be a frustrated person who believes a lot of depressing things about other people. I can only hope that things get better for you, and that maybe you'll meet some better people who will make you rethink some of your views. Life in your world sounds like it would be kind of miserable.
I know a lot of women who have self-identified as feminists for years, and not a single one of them fits the description you have. All the feminists I know are hard-working professional women, hard-working homemakers, or both. That includes some of my peers and managers in the tech field, by the way. Maybe you've just been spending time with some unusually selfish women -- it's possible; there are jerks of both genders out there. I suggest finding a different peer group, because your current one seems to have made you a little bitter.
Also: there's no "taboo" against people physically attacking a woman, or a man for that matter. It's just plain wrong.
(And yes, for making derogatory caps-lock- and scare-quote-heavy generalizations about a group of people so which you don't belong, you can expect to be labelled as biased. That seems pretty fair to me.)
I don't disagree with your first point -- bad exchanges should fail -- but having spent time poking around various Bitcoin-related message boards in the past few months, it seems that Bitcoin Axiom #1 is "Anything that happens involving Bitcoin is good news for Bitcoin."
Fairly or not, an event like this tarnishes all cryptocurrencies by association in the minds of people who are just now learning about them, which could hinder widespread adoption, invite governmental regulation, or inspire grand schemes of Bitcoin theft.
So I just have to ask: if Mt Gox's implosion is "good news for Bitcoin", what would you consider to be bad news for Bitcoin?
...rain water is slightly acidic, having dissolved carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form a weak solution of carbonic acid, which in turn reacts with calcium hydroxide to form calcium carbonate. which.Rome is situated on sedimentary calcareous soil, and the frequent cleaning of limestone encrustation (which accumulated approximately one millimeter per year) suggests that deposits of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the pipes protected against corrosion and insulated against the introduction of lead into the water
It seems like we would need a Miranda equivalent to avoid unintentional self-incrimination. I'm sure a lot of people assume that if a police officer knocks on your door and wants to come in to search the premises for {insert good-sounding reason here}, you should let them. It would help if the law specified that a warrantless search is acceptable for revealing evidence only if the officer has explained the person's right to refuse the search, and that minors by definition cannot give consent unless the crime specifically involves a threat to the minor.
Cop: What's that, Lassie? Lassie: WOOF! Cop: You say it's okay for us to look in Timmy's room for a NICE JUICY STEAK? Timmy: Now just a darn -- Lassie: WOOF! Cop: Good girl! Step aside, Timmy...
I see your distinction between a secular government which has no official position on God, and an atheistic government which has the official position that God does not exist and must not be worshipped in any form. Certainly the latter is necessarily as oppressive as a government which insists upon the worship of one particular God. I'll even grant that by this definition, atheistic governments have a horrible track record on human rights.
That being said, the GP simply said "They're atheists..." and went on to imply a causal relationship between being an atheist and seeing people as nothing more than cogs in a machine. Without clearly stating that "they" means the government and not the people, it comes across very differently.
You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.
Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.
Folks at the time called it the Great Epizootic* of 1872: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... . In cities where it hit hardest, men were reportedly pulling carts in the streets because of the shortage of horses.
I agree, whether they tested them in simulated competition or actual isn't the issue. It's the timeframe. Given that the Olympics happen only once every four years (and is a once-in-a-lifetime shot for some people), it seems sensible that any radical changes to their gear would have been ironed out months ago, to ensure that they could at least achieve their best times to date, if not better.
They didn't even have the gear until one month ago, and even then it hadn't been adjusted for the individual skaters -- the article says that much. But worse, it looks like Heather Richardson sent hers to the seamstress for a significant alteration right before her race. So her vent-less suit was untested, both by Lockheed and by her.
Now, none of us can say for certain whether the problems was the suits, the small timeframe, or simply that the American skaters were outclassed -- because if one person can have an off day, then so can a whole team. I think a simple loss would have been acceptable to the fans. But when the athletes start pointing fingers, well... it's embarrassing. Nobody comes out looking good in this. Not Under Armour, not Lockheed, and (sadly) not the American skaters, who already have to bear the burden of losing.
1. blowing your once-in-four-years shot at an Olympic medal by racing in untested gear (as Heather Richardson did anyway with her last-minute mods),
2. blowing your once-in-four-years shot at an Olympic medal by racing in gear that you've tested to the point that you know it's bad, when you had the option of using your own gear,
3. blowing your once-in-four-years shot at an Olympic medal by racing in gear that you've tested to the point that you know it's bad, but you were dumb enough to sign a contract saying that you'd race in whatever the heck you were given or else be sued out the wazoo, or
4. blowing your once-in-four-years shot at an Olympic medal because you were just outclassed, and then blaming it on the gear?
I mean, there aren't a lot of good options for the American team...
I read TFA, and yes the suits were tested by the manufacturer, but they were only delivered to the team in January where "preliminary adjustments for fit and comfort were made for each athlete... The U.S. team wore the suits in the past month for simulated race conditions, but the Games marked the first time in competition."
These skaters have spent years practicing, and yet they spent just one month in the actual gear they would wear for the competition. And worse, some of them are making last-minute mods:
"Several skaters, including Heather Richardson, ranked No. 1 in the 1,000 meters, sent their suits to an Under Armour seamstress Thursday to have the panel modified with an extra piece of rubber. After the alteration, Ms. Richardson finished seventh—more than a second slower than the winner."
So there's a perfect example of an American racing in untested gear.
This. In Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and "Making Comics" books, he talks about how human beings tend to identify more with a character when that character is less realistic in appearance. I can't remember the specifics, but IIRC this may be because the figure we see is overtly representational, so our unconscious is freed up from dealing with fine details and we can project ourselves into the character more easily.
The ultimate examples of this are stick figures and emoticons. We're fine-tuned to read faces, so all we really need to convey a human emotion is this::-)
Many cartoonists also rely on techniques like caricature and exaggeration of important or distinguishing details. For example, the oversized eyes/mouths/heads in manga don't look wrong, because for human beings these are the most important features to attend to (take a look at many comics, and you'll see that heads and eyes especially are abnormally large when compared to the bodies).
If catering to Western tastes, attractive women are drawn lithe and curvy whereas men are large, stocky and angular, because these are simple exaggerations of the body differences between the sexes.
Which brings us back to your example of Disney and "Frozen". Elsa is beautiful (by Western standards), but a real woman with those facial proportions would look frighteningly wrong walking down the street. She's beautiful in part because (at some level) our brains understand that she's a caricature. But within that context, her face and movements are far more natural than the best CGI simulations of any "realistic" woman I've seen so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Paul talks about this in his letters.
Shame on you, reading Paul's mail!
(I kid, I kid... I know you mean Romans, Corinthians, etc.)
"High-Protein Diet May Get You To Heaven Faster"
See? Whatever you eat, it's win-win!
Hmm, I was going to congratulate you for some nice trolling there, but judging by your previous Slashdot comments, you really do seem to be a frustrated person who believes a lot of depressing things about other people. I can only hope that things get better for you, and that maybe you'll meet some better people who will make you rethink some of your views. Life in your world sounds like it would be kind of miserable.
Well, that escalated quickly...
I know a lot of women who have self-identified as feminists for years, and not a single one of them fits the description you have. All the feminists I know are hard-working professional women, hard-working homemakers, or both. That includes some of my peers and managers in the tech field, by the way. Maybe you've just been spending time with some unusually selfish women -- it's possible; there are jerks of both genders out there. I suggest finding a different peer group, because your current one seems to have made you a little bitter.
Also: there's no "taboo" against people physically attacking a woman, or a man for that matter. It's just plain wrong.
(And yes, for making derogatory caps-lock- and scare-quote-heavy generalizations about a group of people so which you don't belong, you can expect to be labelled as biased. That seems pretty fair to me.)
I don't disagree with your first point -- bad exchanges should fail -- but having spent time poking around various Bitcoin-related message boards in the past few months, it seems that Bitcoin Axiom #1 is "Anything that happens involving Bitcoin is good news for Bitcoin."
Fairly or not, an event like this tarnishes all cryptocurrencies by association in the minds of people who are just now learning about them, which could hinder widespread adoption, invite governmental regulation, or inspire grand schemes of Bitcoin theft.
So I just have to ask: if Mt Gox's implosion is "good news for Bitcoin", what would you consider to be bad news for Bitcoin?
It's doubtful that the Romans introduced much lead into the water. from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~...:
It seems like we would need a Miranda equivalent to avoid unintentional self-incrimination. I'm sure a lot of people assume that if a police officer knocks on your door and wants to come in to search the premises for {insert good-sounding reason here}, you should let them. It would help if the law specified that a warrantless search is acceptable for revealing evidence only if the officer has explained the person's right to refuse the search, and that minors by definition cannot give consent unless the crime specifically involves a threat to the minor.
Cop: What's that, Lassie?
Lassie: WOOF!
Cop: You say it's okay for us to look in Timmy's room for a NICE JUICY STEAK?
Timmy: Now just a darn --
Lassie: WOOF!
Cop: Good girl! Step aside, Timmy...
"Anything that keeps Bitcoin in the news is good for Bitcoin!" :-)
A few years ago I meant to try out KeePass but accidentally installed a totally different app called KeepAss.
On the plus side, I still have my ass, so it must be working.
-- oh, to heck with it, WAY too easy.
I'll just leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
I see your distinction between a secular government which has no official position on God, and an atheistic government which has the official position that God does not exist and must not be worshipped in any form. Certainly the latter is necessarily as oppressive as a government which insists upon the worship of one particular God. I'll even grant that by this definition, atheistic governments have a horrible track record on human rights.
That being said, the GP simply said "They're atheists..." and went on to imply a causal relationship between being an atheist and seeing people as nothing more than cogs in a machine. Without clearly stating that "they" means the government and not the people, it comes across very differently.
I have it on good authority that one of the steps of the proof is "???", followed by "PROFIT!".
You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.
Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.
Folks at the time called it the Great Epizootic* of 1872: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... . In cities where it hit hardest, men were reportedly pulling carts in the streets because of the shortage of horses.
*pronouced ep-eh-zoo-AH-tick
Well played, sir. Well played. :-)
I'll bet they enjoy them equally as much.
Try harder. :-)
I agree, whether they tested them in simulated competition or actual isn't the issue. It's the timeframe. Given that the Olympics happen only once every four years (and is a once-in-a-lifetime shot for some people), it seems sensible that any radical changes to their gear would have been ironed out months ago, to ensure that they could at least achieve their best times to date, if not better.
They didn't even have the gear until one month ago, and even then it hadn't been adjusted for the individual skaters -- the article says that much. But worse, it looks like Heather Richardson sent hers to the seamstress for a significant alteration right before her race. So her vent-less suit was untested, both by Lockheed and by her.
Now, none of us can say for certain whether the problems was the suits, the small timeframe, or simply that the American skaters were outclassed -- because if one person can have an off day, then so can a whole team. I think a simple loss would have been acceptable to the fans. But when the athletes start pointing fingers, well... it's embarrassing. Nobody comes out looking good in this. Not Under Armour, not Lockheed, and (sadly) not the American skaters, who already have to bear the burden of losing.
Fair enough, but then what's worse...?
I mean, there aren't a lot of good options for the American team...
I read TFA, and yes the suits were tested by the manufacturer, but they were only delivered to the team in January where "preliminary adjustments for fit and comfort were made for each athlete... The U.S. team wore the suits in the past month for simulated race conditions, but the Games marked the first time in competition."
These skaters have spent years practicing, and yet they spent just one month in the actual gear they would wear for the competition. And worse, some of them are making last-minute mods:
So there's a perfect example of an American racing in untested gear.
I don't know whether this should be modded +1 Funny or +1 SadlyObvious.
This. In Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and "Making Comics" books, he talks about how human beings tend to identify more with a character when that character is less realistic in appearance. I can't remember the specifics, but IIRC this may be because the figure we see is overtly representational, so our unconscious is freed up from dealing with fine details and we can project ourselves into the character more easily.
The ultimate examples of this are stick figures and emoticons. We're fine-tuned to read faces, so all we really need to convey a human emotion is this: :-)
Many cartoonists also rely on techniques like caricature and exaggeration of important or distinguishing details. For example, the oversized eyes/mouths/heads in manga don't look wrong, because for human beings these are the most important features to attend to (take a look at many comics, and you'll see that heads and eyes especially are abnormally large when compared to the bodies).
If catering to Western tastes, attractive women are drawn lithe and curvy whereas men are large, stocky and angular, because these are simple exaggerations of the body differences between the sexes.
Which brings us back to your example of Disney and "Frozen". Elsa is beautiful (by Western standards), but a real woman with those facial proportions would look frighteningly wrong walking down the street. She's beautiful in part because (at some level) our brains understand that she's a caricature. But within that context, her face and movements are far more natural than the best CGI simulations of any "realistic" woman I've seen so far.