If there's anything I've learned from Mythbusters, it's that explosives do not make things disappear... Explosives simply turn stuff into smaller stuff and spread it around.
The "rest of you" don't have the same situation we do. If you're in Europe, you live in small, homogeneous countries, so you don't have all the race and poverty problems we do. It's a lot easier to get along when you don't have giant groups of people mired in poverty for whatever reason.
Not an argument against you at all... But, I just spent a bunch of time with a friend from the UK, and got to talking about violent crime over there. Let me say that from her stories, it really doesn't seem to be the safest place in the world. Just like here in the US, there are good parts of town, and bad parts... And there is plenty of fucked up shit happening.
For example, one major problem over there is glassing.
I've got to say, that while I don't relish the thought of everyone being armed, I don't think banning all guns will do anything to solve problems of violence.
I have a slightly different viewpoint: as a single male living in the Bay Area, who doesn't have children or own a home, I pay a lot of taxes. In fact, every 4 years I pay my share of the US national debt*. I'm proud to demonstrably do my part.
However, at this point I feel like I'm being taxed enough. I would like it if more people would help out. Minimally, I'd appreciate it if we stop voting to run up the debt.
* Based on the number of households in the US, not on the US population. By the US population I nearly pay my share on a yearly basis. I have no expectation that children should be taxed, however. So I feel per household is fair.
Because the man doesn't usually control when a sexual encounter happens, the woman does.
Are you speaking specifically about make-up sex, or sex in general? Because if it's the latter, my experience says that you're wrong. A very active sex life (e.g. twice a night or more, over the period of a month or more) can be difficult for most men over the age of 25 due to the male refractory period. Men need some time to recover, whereas so long as you are careful not to hurt your partner, a woman could have sex as often as she desires. Likewise, for a man, an orgasm generally means sex is over (unless he's exceptionally well rested) whereas a woman can orgasm as many times as she wishes.
Likewise, it's not terribly difficult to arouse a partner if you're passionate and understand what turns your partner on. I've been in plenty of relationships where my partner wants sex and I'm just too damned tired.
Your statement doesn't match my experience at all, except when pursing someone who isn't terribly interested in having sex with me (hint.)
Regarding make-up sex... When someone is upset, or especially when they are sad... We tend to open up, and discuss things. In a relationship with partners that are feeling somewhat isolated or disconnected, that openness and communication can easily lead to a feeling of closeness as the issues you are experiencing are dealt with. I've personally found that love and a feeling of connectedness or closeness are very strongly related, and that strong feelings often invoke a feeling of passion. Passion + connectedness = very good sex.
I'd personally think that make-up sex is actually pretty common, so long as your partner isn't still harboring hurt feelings.
Sex, can also very much about power. Power can be highly arousing, and the feeling of being out of control can likewise be arousing. My personal experience is that when a woman trusts you completely, the feeling of a man controlling his partner can be very much a turn-on for both parties.
So while saying rape is about violence is true, it ignores that violence is often about passion and desire for the people who commit rape. Personally, I think forced castration would probably solve the problem, even if it's somewhat unethical.
For what it's worth, most people have no idea how well their brakes work under normal conditions, and yet are surprised by how limited their brakes are when they have to slow from 35 miles per hour to zero in the distance of 50 feet.
It doesn't take a lot to practice threshold braking. I generally can get in a little bit of practice at late night on free-way off-ramps when no-one is behind me.
In practice, there isn't a lot of guesswork in braking in dry conditions. Apply the brakes smoothly until you start to feel traction go away, and hold there. On a bike, it's even simpler; brake until the rear wheel is about to lift, and hold there.
I agree with you though... In practice, ABS is good on all cars, so long as you don't presume that it will significantly improve stopping distances. People who expect ABS to save them sometimes run with a smaller safety buffer, and in doing so are at a greater risk of a crash than those without ABS.
Actually, ABS does not provide better braking, except in situations where the driver panics and misuses the breaks. The most common problems solved by ABS are over-braking, where a driver panics, plants his foot in the brake, and puts the car into an uncontrollable skid; and under braking, where the driver is so afraid of skidding the vehicle that they do not apply the brakes as hard as is possible. With a qualified driver on clean roads, who is capable of properly modulating the brakes, ABS provides no benefit over traditional braking systems - in fact, in those conditions traditional braking systems have been demonstrated to provide slightly shorter stopping distances.
ABS is beneficial in that the driver need not be qualified; they need only stomp on the brake pedal to get near the absolute limits of braking under control. Likewise, ABS is a huge benefit in adverse conditions, especially for motorcyclists. In several real world tests, it was demonstrated that professional motorcycle racers could not match the performance of ABS on wet ground.
With that said, although I am experienced enough to ride without ABS (I race motorcycles) I do strongly prefer having it. I've never used it in dry conditions, but in the wet it has literally been a lifesaver.
A circuit breaker really doesn't help in the event that you shock yourself. For the most part, the human body provides enough resistance that you won't see 15 amps of current or whatever is required to trip that particular breaker.
On the other hand, a GFCI protected circuit will tend to save you in the event of an accidental shock.
I'm vegetarian, and have been since birth. I feel that having some meat in the diet is beneficial for health, and have tried on several occasions to add fish to my diet. Despite that feeling, I've always been unsuccessful. Apparently, having spent 27 years eating a vegetarian diet tends to have an impact on your preferences... I just don't enjoy it enough to make it worth the cost and health benefits.
* Technically, ovo-lacto vegetarian. I eat eggs and dairy products.
Your experience trying to eat a vegetarian diet more or less reflects most of my experiences with meat. I simply lack the biological ability to properly digest meat, and red meats such as pork and beef tend to make me feel very sick. Even 'white' meats such as fish will cause feelings of gas and discomfort.
As a vegetarian, I do appreciate that my lifestyle is environmentally healthy, and reduces cruelty. I wouldn't wish that the rest of the country stop eating meat, but I would prefer that meat consumption was somewhat reduced, and that the quality of the meat consumed improved. I don't personally have such an issue with animals being killed, but my preference is that their lives be somewhat pleasant up until that point.
Or, more likely, if there is sufficient conductivity from the light housing to the water, some other fixture in the pool will provide a ground path. Household voltages are dangerous, but not nearly as much as people like to think, especially the 110 volt stuff.
Great example: some idiot wired a lamp installed in my bathroom backwards. The lamp had a metal housing that the installer had intended to ground to neutral. Unfortunately, the installer mistook the black wire as neutral, and connected it to the ground post and neutral post on the lamp. The neutral wire was connected to hot on the lamp. The lamp worked fine of course - AC current isn't really directional, and wiring something backwards usually just results in serious safety issues... But it did produce the result of providing an electrically hot conductor that was easy to reach while standing in the bathroom, or even worse - turning the facet on in the sink. Damn thing was wired up like this for a couple of years, occasionally zapping someone before I finally pulled it apart to fix it.
In my teens I spent a lot of time playing with electricity, and was shocked more times than I can count. Never caused any issues.
Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.
OP is correct, so long as you're not concerned about where that heat is produced... (40% at the generating station, 5-7% during transmission...)
For MSNBC to have a real left wing Bias, we'd first to have a real left wing in the United States... Suffice it to say, I'm still waiting to see a communist talking head on the news.
Make no mistake... The United States has a Right Wing party and a Centrist Party. True left wingers are a fringe group in these parts.
I'm right handed, and use my mouse with my left hand (holdover from hunt-and-peck typing days, despite the fact that I've since taught myself to touch type.) Despite that, I leave the mouse in the right hand click configuration. Sometimes, standardizing my mouse with every other mouse in the world is better than being able to 'left-click' with my index finger.
BILLY MAYS HERE FOR TECHKNOB! ARE YOU TIRED OF HEARING REALLY LOUD COMMERCIALS? WELL, HEAR THEM NO MORE WITH THE PATENTED DELUXE COMMERCIAL VOLUME REDUCER! USING ADVANCED COMMERCIAL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY, IT AUTOMATICALLY DETECTS WHEN A COMMERCIAL IS COMING ON, AND REDUCES THE VOLUME 50% FOR YOU! AVAILABLE FOR $19.95, CALL NOW!
There... Fixed that for you.;)
Oh damn... Stupid Slashdot lameness filter doesn't get the joke. Okay... Time to pad the post...
Ice ice baby Ice ice baby All right stop collaborate and listen Ice is back with my brand new invention Something grabs a hold of me tightly Flow like a harpoon daily and nightly Will it ever stop yo I don't know Turn off the lights and I'll glow To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal Light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle Dance go rush to the speaker that booms I'm killing your brain like a poisonous mushroom Deadly when I play a dope melody Anything less than the best is a felony Love it or leave it you better gain weight You better hit bull's eye the kid don't play If there was a problem yo I'll solve it Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it
On small class C networks, especially when using consumer grade equipment, it's very common to put the entire network behind a single external IP address. Each outgoing connection is assigned a port on the NAT box. Network utilization on a class C should never be so great as to exhaust the number of available ports. This is many to one NAT.
For larger corporate networks, it's common to use a pool of IP addresses on a more advanced router. Because each IP address has it's own pool of available ports, many more connections are available.
Finally, it's possible to abhor the use of port mapping, and simply assign an IP address to each client host that connects through the router, and simply redirect all traffic back to the client that initiated the first connection. Since each client has an entire IP, all traffic to that IP would be redirected back to the client, with a 1 to 1 port map. This would essentially permit any protocol to work through the NAT box, including active FTP and some of the other PITA protocols This approach also means that you only have to have enough IPs to support your active users, instead of every user on your network.
With that said, it's been a long time since I was building firewalls, so some of my terminology may be off, or incorrect. Hopefully someone can clarify any mistakes I've made.
Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?
But 90% of the population isn't smoking meth, or looting, or vandalizing. So your argument might support the idea that popular activities should be legalized.
And in fact, through history most of the things that 90% of the population do have been legal until there is a significant enough portion of the population that disagrees with it to illegalize it. See: Racism.
Sad news that today Sir Maurice Wilkes passed away, aged 97
We're talking about a pioneer who accomplished a lot in his life, and lived to the age of 97, right? While I'm sure no one's happy to see him go, I can't possibly imagine how this is sad news.
Sounds like he lived life the way it was meant to be lived. Celebrate that.
Teenagers who have a social life that is driven by peer validation, rather than, say, quality of social interaction or deep interest in a certain activity, are more likely to have sex and/or engage in risk taking behaviors in an attempt to impress those peers.
In previous decades it was probably the kids who went to outdoor concerts, or the kids always heading up to a lovers lane or old quarry to drink. In the Victorian era these people were called dandies. The technology is essentially irrelevant, so long as that segment of the population exists, they'll do whatever is 'in thing.'
The other possibility is that teenagers have sex, drink, and use drugs because they enjoy those activities, just the same way that adults do. Yes, there are risks involved, and yes those activities are dangerous when pursued irresponsibly. That doesn't always mean that they are giving in to peer pressure.
Teens who chose not to have sex are typically making that choice because of the huge pressure society puts on them. Waiting until you are 18 to have sex is *not* biologically natural.
Seriously, sometimes people communicate because they are social. Aching and begging imply that the person is trying to coerce other people to communicate with them, which I don't think is a particularly reasonable assumption to make. If someone has a large circle of friends and that person keeps in contact with all those friends, and if they use texting as a primary communication tool (it is very convenient, especially in class...) then yes, 120+ text messages a day is pretty damn reasonable.
Hell, for me a pretty typical text message exchange is 4 or 5 messages. Wouldn't take a lot of that to rack up big numbers.
Keeping a permanent copy of every bad web site made by every bored teen is not actually useful, any more than keeping every grocery list, or to do list, or every piece of homework you ever did as a child. Some things simply don't have future value. The fact that we can keep things forever at near zero cost doesn't mean that we should keep things of near zero value. Let it go.
They may not have a huge amount of value to future historians, but I bet this data does have value to the people who originally generated much of that content.
To plot a line, you need to points of reference. For us, the present provides one point of reference, and the past another. It's much easier to see where we are going as people when we can see how far we've come. Yeah, many of those old pages are embarrassing, but much like reading my own journal entries, it really helps me appreciate how I've developed as a person.
Keeping those old web pages around also shows us about the history of social network. These days, if someone wants to throw some personal information on the web, they'll open up a facebook account. With a minimal investment of time, they'll have a fairly professional place to put their thoughts, photos, comments to friends. Back in the late 90s, little or none of that existed; geocities was the closest equivalent. Without a framework, people with no talent for web design were left to code up ugly websites with copious under construction signs. I'm sure more than a few of them went on to be professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that we should nuke the site from orbit?
If there's anything I've learned from Mythbusters, it's that explosives do not make things disappear... Explosives simply turn stuff into smaller stuff and spread it around.
Not an argument against you at all... But, I just spent a bunch of time with a friend from the UK, and got to talking about violent crime over there. Let me say that from her stories, it really doesn't seem to be the safest place in the world. Just like here in the US, there are good parts of town, and bad parts... And there is plenty of fucked up shit happening.
For example, one major problem over there is glassing.
I've got to say, that while I don't relish the thought of everyone being armed, I don't think banning all guns will do anything to solve problems of violence.
I have a slightly different viewpoint: as a single male living in the Bay Area, who doesn't have children or own a home, I pay a lot of taxes. In fact, every 4 years I pay my share of the US national debt*. I'm proud to demonstrably do my part.
However, at this point I feel like I'm being taxed enough. I would like it if more people would help out. Minimally, I'd appreciate it if we stop voting to run up the debt.
* Based on the number of households in the US, not on the US population. By the US population I nearly pay my share on a yearly basis. I have no expectation that children should be taxed, however. So I feel per household is fair.
Are you speaking specifically about make-up sex, or sex in general? Because if it's the latter, my experience says that you're wrong. A very active sex life (e.g. twice a night or more, over the period of a month or more) can be difficult for most men over the age of 25 due to the male refractory period. Men need some time to recover, whereas so long as you are careful not to hurt your partner, a woman could have sex as often as she desires. Likewise, for a man, an orgasm generally means sex is over (unless he's exceptionally well rested) whereas a woman can orgasm as many times as she wishes.
Likewise, it's not terribly difficult to arouse a partner if you're passionate and understand what turns your partner on. I've been in plenty of relationships where my partner wants sex and I'm just too damned tired.
Your statement doesn't match my experience at all, except when pursing someone who isn't terribly interested in having sex with me (hint.)
Regarding make-up sex... When someone is upset, or especially when they are sad... We tend to open up, and discuss things. In a relationship with partners that are feeling somewhat isolated or disconnected, that openness and communication can easily lead to a feeling of closeness as the issues you are experiencing are dealt with. I've personally found that love and a feeling of connectedness or closeness are very strongly related, and that strong feelings often invoke a feeling of passion. Passion + connectedness = very good sex.
I'd personally think that make-up sex is actually pretty common, so long as your partner isn't still harboring hurt feelings.
Sex, can also very much about power. Power can be highly arousing, and the feeling of being out of control can likewise be arousing. My personal experience is that when a woman trusts you completely, the feeling of a man controlling his partner can be very much a turn-on for both parties.
So while saying rape is about violence is true, it ignores that violence is often about passion and desire for the people who commit rape. Personally, I think forced castration would probably solve the problem, even if it's somewhat unethical.
For what it's worth, most people have no idea how well their brakes work under normal conditions, and yet are surprised by how limited their brakes are when they have to slow from 35 miles per hour to zero in the distance of 50 feet.
It doesn't take a lot to practice threshold braking. I generally can get in a little bit of practice at late night on free-way off-ramps when no-one is behind me.
In practice, there isn't a lot of guesswork in braking in dry conditions. Apply the brakes smoothly until you start to feel traction go away, and hold there. On a bike, it's even simpler; brake until the rear wheel is about to lift, and hold there.
I agree with you though... In practice, ABS is good on all cars, so long as you don't presume that it will significantly improve stopping distances. People who expect ABS to save them sometimes run with a smaller safety buffer, and in doing so are at a greater risk of a crash than those without ABS.
Actually, ABS does not provide better braking, except in situations where the driver panics and misuses the breaks. The most common problems solved by ABS are over-braking, where a driver panics, plants his foot in the brake, and puts the car into an uncontrollable skid; and under braking, where the driver is so afraid of skidding the vehicle that they do not apply the brakes as hard as is possible. With a qualified driver on clean roads, who is capable of properly modulating the brakes, ABS provides no benefit over traditional braking systems - in fact, in those conditions traditional braking systems have been demonstrated to provide slightly shorter stopping distances.
ABS is beneficial in that the driver need not be qualified; they need only stomp on the brake pedal to get near the absolute limits of braking under control. Likewise, ABS is a huge benefit in adverse conditions, especially for motorcyclists. In several real world tests, it was demonstrated that professional motorcycle racers could not match the performance of ABS on wet ground.
With that said, although I am experienced enough to ride without ABS (I race motorcycles) I do strongly prefer having it. I've never used it in dry conditions, but in the wet it has literally been a lifesaver.
If it makes you feel better, I also race motorcycles.
A circuit breaker really doesn't help in the event that you shock yourself. For the most part, the human body provides enough resistance that you won't see 15 amps of current or whatever is required to trip that particular breaker.
On the other hand, a GFCI protected circuit will tend to save you in the event of an accidental shock.
I'm vegetarian, and have been since birth. I feel that having some meat in the diet is beneficial for health, and have tried on several occasions to add fish to my diet. Despite that feeling, I've always been unsuccessful. Apparently, having spent 27 years eating a vegetarian diet tends to have an impact on your preferences... I just don't enjoy it enough to make it worth the cost and health benefits.
* Technically, ovo-lacto vegetarian. I eat eggs and dairy products.
Your experience trying to eat a vegetarian diet more or less reflects most of my experiences with meat. I simply lack the biological ability to properly digest meat, and red meats such as pork and beef tend to make me feel very sick. Even 'white' meats such as fish will cause feelings of gas and discomfort.
As a vegetarian, I do appreciate that my lifestyle is environmentally healthy, and reduces cruelty. I wouldn't wish that the rest of the country stop eating meat, but I would prefer that meat consumption was somewhat reduced, and that the quality of the meat consumed improved. I don't personally have such an issue with animals being killed, but my preference is that their lives be somewhat pleasant up until that point.
Or, more likely, if there is sufficient conductivity from the light housing to the water, some other fixture in the pool will provide a ground path. Household voltages are dangerous, but not nearly as much as people like to think, especially the 110 volt stuff.
Great example: some idiot wired a lamp installed in my bathroom backwards. The lamp had a metal housing that the installer had intended to ground to neutral. Unfortunately, the installer mistook the black wire as neutral, and connected it to the ground post and neutral post on the lamp. The neutral wire was connected to hot on the lamp. The lamp worked fine of course - AC current isn't really directional, and wiring something backwards usually just results in serious safety issues... But it did produce the result of providing an electrically hot conductor that was easy to reach while standing in the bathroom, or even worse - turning the facet on in the sink. Damn thing was wired up like this for a couple of years, occasionally zapping someone before I finally pulled it apart to fix it.
In my teens I spent a lot of time playing with electricity, and was shocked more times than I can count. Never caused any issues.
OP is correct, so long as you're not concerned about where that heat is produced... (40% at the generating station, 5-7% during transmission...)
For MSNBC to have a real left wing Bias, we'd first to have a real left wing in the United States... Suffice it to say, I'm still waiting to see a communist talking head on the news.
Make no mistake... The United States has a Right Wing party and a Centrist Party. True left wingers are a fringe group in these parts.
I'm right handed, and use my mouse with my left hand (holdover from hunt-and-peck typing days, despite the fact that I've since taught myself to touch type.) Despite that, I leave the mouse in the right hand click configuration. Sometimes, standardizing my mouse with every other mouse in the world is better than being able to 'left-click' with my index finger.
There... Fixed that for you. ;)
Oh damn... Stupid Slashdot lameness filter doesn't get the joke. Okay... Time to pad the post...
Spoken like someone who's never been hit with an $800 data bill.
NAT can be implemented a huge number of ways.
On small class C networks, especially when using consumer grade equipment, it's very common to put the entire network behind a single external IP address. Each outgoing connection is assigned a port on the NAT box. Network utilization on a class C should never be so great as to exhaust the number of available ports. This is many to one NAT.
For larger corporate networks, it's common to use a pool of IP addresses on a more advanced router. Because each IP address has it's own pool of available ports, many more connections are available.
Finally, it's possible to abhor the use of port mapping, and simply assign an IP address to each client host that connects through the router, and simply redirect all traffic back to the client that initiated the first connection. Since each client has an entire IP, all traffic to that IP would be redirected back to the client, with a 1 to 1 port map. This would essentially permit any protocol to work through the NAT box, including active FTP and some of the other PITA protocols This approach also means that you only have to have enough IPs to support your active users, instead of every user on your network.
With that said, it's been a long time since I was building firewalls, so some of my terminology may be off, or incorrect. Hopefully someone can clarify any mistakes I've made.
But 90% of the population isn't smoking meth, or looting, or vandalizing. So your argument might support the idea that popular activities should be legalized.
And in fact, through history most of the things that 90% of the population do have been legal until there is a significant enough portion of the population that disagrees with it to illegalize it. See: Racism.
The other possibility is that teenagers have sex, drink, and use drugs because they enjoy those activities, just the same way that adults do. Yes, there are risks involved, and yes those activities are dangerous when pursued irresponsibly. That doesn't always mean that they are giving in to peer pressure.
Teens who chose not to have sex are typically making that choice because of the huge pressure society puts on them. Waiting until you are 18 to have sex is *not* biologically natural.
I'm guessing you don't text very much.
Seriously, sometimes people communicate because they are social. Aching and begging imply that the person is trying to coerce other people to communicate with them, which I don't think is a particularly reasonable assumption to make. If someone has a large circle of friends and that person keeps in contact with all those friends, and if they use texting as a primary communication tool (it is very convenient, especially in class...) then yes, 120+ text messages a day is pretty damn reasonable.
Hell, for me a pretty typical text message exchange is 4 or 5 messages. Wouldn't take a lot of that to rack up big numbers.
Asexual reproduction isn't the same as virgin birth.
For all we know, that snake is a slut.
They may not have a huge amount of value to future historians, but I bet this data does have value to the people who originally generated much of that content.
To plot a line, you need to points of reference. For us, the present provides one point of reference, and the past another. It's much easier to see where we are going as people when we can see how far we've come. Yeah, many of those old pages are embarrassing, but much like reading my own journal entries, it really helps me appreciate how I've developed as a person.
Keeping those old web pages around also shows us about the history of social network. These days, if someone wants to throw some personal information on the web, they'll open up a facebook account. With a minimal investment of time, they'll have a fairly professional place to put their thoughts, photos, comments to friends. Back in the late 90s, little or none of that existed; geocities was the closest equivalent. Without a framework, people with no talent for web design were left to code up ugly websites with copious under construction signs. I'm sure more than a few of them went on to be professionals.
We've come a long way, baby.