Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.
Not exactly. We have laws that consider rights exist outside of freedom of speech. The right to a fair trial is considered one of these rights.
I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement.
You can receive the info. There are no restrictions on reporting on the facts of the trial.
Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.
Well, lucky for you living in a country with no stupid people.
Speeding is different. It's a strict liability crime. You are charged whether you know you're speeding or not.
Not knowing it's a crime is not a defence. However, not knowing that you're even doing the act is a defence. Aunt Tilley had no way of knowing that the emoticon was infected, so she's not guilty. If she did know it was infected but was not aware that infecting someone's computer with a trojan was a crime then she would be guilty.
The attacker is already established by precedent. Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime. Aunt Tilly didn't have any intent so she's not guilty. The person who created the emoticon hack was intending to do commit a crime.
The victim is anyone who suffered loss. The company and anyone whose password was stolen in this case.
I can't wait to read some hate-filled slashdotter's pathetic tirade against women. Have at it, chaps.
Women: A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that an enire gender seprate from male exists, is ludicrous...
Sadly I don't really have the time to do justice to such a classic troll.
Well, given that fuel is dispensed in litres, but distances are measured in miles, wine is measured in ml and beer in pints, the systems we tend to use are somewhat fluid.
Might still be possible to convert the assembly into C. An inefficient way of doing things compared with a proper conversion, but it should be faster than an emulator.
We've seen a few solar aircraft. Without a pilot, you get a lot of space for batteries. And you can store at least some of the energy as potential energy. You don't need to keep it at the exact altitude.
Not sure if it makes a difference even if we have an object that is marginally denser than water at surface level. We're still only displacing our volume.
It is a convenient standard unit. Inexpensive and tasty. Can be used for measuring mass, volume, friction (obviously), and radiactivity (due to its high potassium content). A chest X-ray is equivalent to 70,000 bananas.
It depends on whether the TV floats or not. Usually the question uses rocks or something that will obviously sink, but the GP was making a joke rather than asking seriously.
The answer though - when in a boat, the displacement is equal to its own weight. When submerged, the displacement is equal to its own volume. In the case of rocks, they have quite a small volume or large mass relative to water. Therefore the water level will go down. I think.
I had no idea the Six Million Dollar Man was based on a book.
I think those who grew up in the 80's were spoiled somewhat by a lot of original characters and stories from Spielberg and Lucas. You are quite right though. Of the AFI's top 10 films of all time, 7 are based on books, and oneof the others (Lawrence of Arabia) is biographical. Only Citizen Kane and Singing In The Rain are original.
I'd assume it is an IQ that people would consider to indicate they're as smart as they think they are.
What does an estimated IQ even mean? Is this estimated according to an average of contemporary intelligence levels, or the average intelligence at the time? Because we're a lot smarter than we were a century ago.
I suspect the estimated IQs are actually a load of rubbish. Academics tend not to have substantially higher IQs than engineers, legal experts, or medical professionals. There's a certain correlation between IQ and academic success but since there's a spread of 30 or so points between the second and fourth quartile I doubt you can really estimate with any sort of accuracy.
Why? Well, to see if it works. Sorry. I don't understand the question. If I make claims about the effect of a device then I want to be able to prove those claims, ideally scientifically.
Measure reported eye strain with this device.
Measure reported eye strain without this device.
Measure reported eye strain without a device that purports to do this, but just projects random colours behind the screen.
The third test is the placebo. I imagine eye strain is affected by psychological factors since pretty much every other ailment is so we need to control for that.
Considering research suggests that mobile phones are more distracting than passengers, it's probably overstepping to ban talking to passengers. It's also a lot harder to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. We have laws that consider rights exist outside of freedom of speech. The right to a fair trial is considered one of these rights.
You can receive the info. There are no restrictions on reporting on the facts of the trial.
Well, lucky for you living in a country with no stupid people.
Well, in the UK, we don't. And we shouldn't. That's the point.
In the US, there seems to be the whole trial by media thing, so presumably the public have some influence over this.
This is the UK. We don't allow the media to manipulate the court in this way.
Speeding is different. It's a strict liability crime. You are charged whether you know you're speeding or not.
Not knowing it's a crime is not a defence. However, not knowing that you're even doing the act is a defence. Aunt Tilley had no way of knowing that the emoticon was infected, so she's not guilty. If she did know it was infected but was not aware that infecting someone's computer with a trojan was a crime then she would be guilty.
The attacker is already established by precedent. Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime. Aunt Tilly didn't have any intent so she's not guilty. The person who created the emoticon hack was intending to do commit a crime.
The victim is anyone who suffered loss. The company and anyone whose password was stolen in this case.
This really is a solved problem in law.
I can't wait to read some hate-filled slashdotter's pathetic tirade against women. Have at it, chaps.
Women: A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that an enire gender seprate from male exists, is ludicrous...
Sadly I don't really have the time to do justice to such a classic troll.
Well, given that fuel is dispensed in litres, but distances are measured in miles, wine is measured in ml and beer in pints, the systems we tend to use are somewhat fluid.
Might still be possible to convert the assembly into C. An inefficient way of doing things compared with a proper conversion, but it should be faster than an emulator.
We've seen a few solar aircraft. Without a pilot, you get a lot of space for batteries. And you can store at least some of the energy as potential energy. You don't need to keep it at the exact altitude.
Hiring manager is called Bob. He can only receive emails from people whose names start with A.
He already was a neo-conservative fringe Libertarian. It just became more apparent after he ran out of geek things to talk about.
Not sure if it makes a difference even if we have an object that is marginally denser than water at surface level. We're still only displacing our volume.
It is a convenient standard unit. Inexpensive and tasty. Can be used for measuring mass, volume, friction (obviously), and radiactivity (due to its high potassium content). A chest X-ray is equivalent to 70,000 bananas.
True, but they weren't exactly built to last. They were built quickly. They had a tendency to break in two.
It depends on whether the TV floats or not. Usually the question uses rocks or something that will obviously sink, but the GP was making a joke rather than asking seriously.
The answer though - when in a boat, the displacement is equal to its own weight. When submerged, the displacement is equal to its own volume. In the case of rocks, they have quite a small volume or large mass relative to water. Therefore the water level will go down. I think.
I had no idea the Six Million Dollar Man was based on a book.
I think those who grew up in the 80's were spoiled somewhat by a lot of original characters and stories from Spielberg and Lucas. You are quite right though. Of the AFI's top 10 films of all time, 7 are based on books, and oneof the others (Lawrence of Arabia) is biographical. Only Citizen Kane and Singing In The Rain are original.
It's just bad journalism. The actual press release doesn't make this claim.
But you still need to deal with the bad script.
I'd assume it is an IQ that people would consider to indicate they're as smart as they think they are.
What does an estimated IQ even mean? Is this estimated according to an average of contemporary intelligence levels, or the average intelligence at the time? Because we're a lot smarter than we were a century ago.
I suspect the estimated IQs are actually a load of rubbish. Academics tend not to have substantially higher IQs than engineers, legal experts, or medical professionals. There's a certain correlation between IQ and academic success but since there's a spread of 30 or so points between the second and fourth quartile I doubt you can really estimate with any sort of accuracy.
Plus people who have no idea of technology, and those who are particularly good t covering their tracks. I guess the last lot might be useful.
Why? Well, to see if it works. Sorry. I don't understand the question. If I make claims about the effect of a device then I want to be able to prove those claims, ideally scientifically.
Measure reported eye strain with this device.
Measure reported eye strain without this device.
Measure reported eye strain without a device that purports to do this, but just projects random colours behind the screen.
The third test is the placebo. I imagine eye strain is affected by psychological factors since pretty much every other ailment is so we need to control for that.
It's a nice idea and look cool. But have they actually compared eye strain with and without this? And with a placebo
You want to make an interocitor?
According at least one study it's not. Also it's harder to ban passengers than phones, and laws need to take practicality into account.
Good question.
Considering research suggests that mobile phones are more distracting than passengers, it's probably overstepping to ban talking to passengers. It's also a lot harder to do.