I've seen a MIG-21 over my back garden. Took a photo of it and it's quite hard to tell the difference between it and the three Mirage F1's flying with it.
Aircraft identification is a lot easier with plastic models and those nice silhouettes.
It's like when you walk into a Tube station and see ten of the Met's finest standing there. In theory you ought to feel safer, but in practice you wonder what's happening that you don't know about.
Well, you should feel safe, unless you're a Brazillian, or a newspaper seller, or a small woman, or you've got a table leg in a bag, or...
Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't feel safe.
Ah, the British Bobby, the best police in the world.
It seems to me that he's not saying gay sex, in and of itself, is a bad thing. The only bad thing is using the sexual organs for a non-functional purpose (i.e. not making babies).
So he's saying that gay sex that makes babies is ok, but sex, (gay or not) that can't make babies is bad.
The guy is supposed to be some kind of deep thinker. If he hasn't worked out that sex is for more than just making babies, and that many kinds of sex can't make babies, and that sex that doesn't make babies is not "non-functional" he needs a reality check. I mean even the fucking[*] bonobos know this.
Anyone who thinks that "sex is for making kiddies" doesn't get out much. (Or do I mean "get it out much"?). His argument isn't that "gay sex is bad" (sez who? who the fuck is "deeming" this stuff?), it's "sex using other than authorised naughty bits is bad". This guy is down on blow jobs.
You can bet the government of China will have the interest of western, freedom and democracy loving individuals[...]
But we're not talking about western freedom and democracy loving individuals. We're talking about the Dalai Lama - the absolutist leader of an obscurantist anti-intellectual sect.
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"
In this case the error was evenly distributed, because it was caused by bad UI design.
Uh, no
You don't think there may be differences in how people who are "elderly or those who work in schools", "usually unemployed or work non-standard hours" and "usually work a regular day job" might react to bad UI design?
Or, for an even more reliable solution; The pencil.
Pencils are error prone.
The nearest thing to a foolproof system I've seen is the French one - you go to a table, get given pre-printed ballots for all the candidates[1]. You go into the booth, put the one you want in the envelope, throw the others in a wastebasket, leave the booth and walk to the urn. The guy at the urn checks your ID, you stick the envelope in the urn, the guy says "Mr Eunuchswear has voted", another guy crosses your name off the list.
The only way to fuck up is to stick an empty envelope in the urn (some people do that as a protest) or put more than one ballot in the envelope (in which case the envelope should be thrown away at the counting stage). I don't know how they deal with blind people.
Ok, now cue the Americans "but our ballots are too complicated - we vote for the dog catcher here". Well, in France you vote for:
1. President 2. Depute (congressman) 3. Conseil regional (state congress) 4. Conseil Departmental (county) 5. Comune (town council) 6. Depute European (European parliament) 7. Prudhommes (employment tribunal)
Quite a few! How is it done? Simple - Don't hold the elections the same day.
Another American complaint "but we're so big[2], if we didn't use machines we'd never be able to get the counting done!"
Elections scale - the more people that vote the more people there are do do the counting. (In France anyone who votes can volunteer to help with the counting.)
[1] If you don't pick up one ballot for each candidate they shout at you - it's illegal to reveal the way you're going to vote inside the voting station.
[2] I think the usual claim is that America is too big for simple elections. But maybe the complaint is about the size of the voters themselves?
this bill only addresses if you *break the law* and download copyrighted material
No, this bill only affects you if you are accused by a private company of having broken the law - no attempt will be made of finding out whether you actual did download something, and you will not be informed of what you are accused of having downloaded, so you will be unable to defend yourself.
Also it's not "three strikes and you're out" it's "one strike and you're out" - you may receive two warnings by e-mail if the HADOPI feel like it, but being e-mail nobody can be sure it'll get through.
Folks out there get subsidized mobiles because running any kind of wiring three thousand kilometers into the middle of nowhere for one farm isn't really cost effective.
So it's cost effective to string cell towers out across the outback, what - one every 10Km or so? But not one measly little fiber?
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a MIG-21 over my back garden. Took a photo of it and it's quite hard to tell the difference between it and the three Mirage F1's flying with it.
Aircraft identification is a lot easier with plastic models and those nice silhouettes.
Well, you should feel safe, unless you're a Brazillian, or a newspaper seller, or a small woman, or you've got a table leg in a bag, or...
Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't feel safe.
Ah, the British Bobby, the best police in the world.
So. how long does your netbook battery last?
How much of that is your video RAM?
All the people who use that as their business model, you know, slicehost, amazon, people like that.
The Linux partition could be safe against snooping and modification (but not destruction) if it was encrypted.
Yes, but his reason devolves to "$DEITY says it's wrong!"[*]:
Who, in the absence of a $DEITY, "intends" certain organs for sexual intercourse?
([*] which, given that he doesn't believe in a $DEITY, makes me doubt his sincerity).
You're cutting him too much slack:
So he's saying that gay sex that makes babies is ok, but sex, (gay or not) that can't make babies is bad.
The guy is supposed to be some kind of deep thinker. If he hasn't worked out that sex is for more than just making babies, and that many kinds of sex can't make babies, and that sex that doesn't make babies is not "non-functional" he needs a reality check. I mean even the fucking[*] bonobos know this.
([*] Heh. He said "fucking bonobos". Heh).
Anyone who thinks that "sex is for making kiddies" doesn't get out much. (Or do I mean "get it out much"?). His argument isn't that "gay sex is bad" (sez who? who the fuck is "deeming" this stuff?), it's "sex using other than authorised naughty bits is bad". This guy is down on blow jobs.
Utilitarian?
But we're not talking about western freedom and democracy loving individuals. We're talking about the Dalai Lama - the absolutist leader of an obscurantist anti-intellectual sect.
No, sorry, it isn't.
Tibetan literacy rates historically have been atrocious
Uh, maybe from the POV of some feudal religious obscurantists this is a feature and not a bug?
Uh, confessing your guilt to a lawyer is a no-no in most systems. Lawyers aren't allowed to lie - just bend the truth.
Or maybe google doesn't provide the same services as TPB?
Pah, novelty junkies.
Yup, that's a lot.
So, like I said - why hold all these elections on the same day?
You could batch 'em up a little, but this "big bang" thing is why you end up with untrustworthy counting systems.
But if thinking about changing your habits is too hard please feel free to keep throwing technical "fixes" at the problem.
(Why is the county coroner an elected position?)
Uh, who are the bad guys?
Who do you root for when watching Red Dawn?
Go Wolverines!
Uh, no
You don't think there may be differences in how people who are "elderly or those who work in schools", "usually unemployed or work non-standard hours" and "usually work a regular day job" might react to bad UI design?
(Using the categories proposed by GP).
Pencils are error prone.
The nearest thing to a foolproof system I've seen is the French one - you go to a table, get given pre-printed ballots for all the candidates[1]. You go into the booth, put the one you want in the envelope, throw the others in a wastebasket, leave the booth and walk to the urn. The guy at the urn checks your ID, you stick the envelope in the urn, the guy says "Mr Eunuchswear has voted", another guy crosses your name off the list.
The only way to fuck up is to stick an empty envelope in the urn (some people do that as a protest) or put more than one ballot in the envelope (in which case the envelope should be thrown away at the counting stage). I don't know how they deal with blind people.
Ok, now cue the Americans "but our ballots are too complicated - we vote for the dog catcher here". Well, in France you vote for:
1. President
2. Depute (congressman)
3. Conseil regional (state congress)
4. Conseil Departmental (county)
5. Comune (town council)
6. Depute European (European parliament)
7. Prudhommes (employment tribunal)
Quite a few! How is it done? Simple - Don't hold the elections the same day.
Another American complaint "but we're so big[2], if we didn't use machines we'd never be able to get the counting done!"
Elections scale - the more people that vote the more people there are do do the counting. (In France anyone who votes can volunteer to help with the counting.)
[1] If you don't pick up one ballot for each candidate they shout at you - it's illegal to reveal the way you're going to vote inside the voting station.
[2] I think the usual claim is that America is too big for simple elections. But maybe the complaint is about the size of the voters themselves?
Because ATM's and supermarket checkout machines deal with MONEY which is IMPORTANT.
And your vote isn't.
There is no other explanation.
Web 2.0? With IQ? Sorry, lost cause.
Sorry, that's one warning by e-mail and one recommended letter. So "two strikes".
No, this bill only affects you if you are accused by a private company of having broken the law - no attempt will be made of finding out whether you actual did download something, and you will not be informed of what you are accused of having downloaded, so you will be unable to defend yourself.
Also it's not "three strikes and you're out" it's "one strike and you're out" - you may receive two warnings by e-mail if the HADOPI feel like it, but being e-mail nobody can be sure it'll get through.
So it's cost effective to string cell towers out across the outback, what - one every 10Km or so? But not one measly little fiber?
The benefits are that it costs so much you don't do it? I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Please read before replying.
QuantumG sez:
If you think he's wrong come up with some real info, don't just ignore him.