Close, but the pidgin is the words and constructions used by the parents in an environment, where they need to communicate. They bring words together until they communcate their information.
The children under the primary language learning period then take these most independant words and structures and produce a creole from them.
Oddly, these creoles share a lot of traits with English usually. Although it's generally accepted that English is not a creole.
These children are having their language protected. This is a developing language, and should be protected the same as any other language.
We have languages that are dying all the time, because their speakers are essentially being given a language that they are told is superior to their own.
Why do you feel that their language is so unimportant that it should be protected? The fact that scientific information is being collected from these children is fine. The newer kids are not being deprived of language, they are being allowed to learn their own language to use, and not being forced to learn someone elses.
These children were deprived of language before, and now are not being deprived. The older kids, who were deprived of language before this, would have been given no better opportunity had they been taught an existing sign language.
Is it unfortunate that some some of these children had been denied the ability to learn languages? Yes. Are they being deprived anymore? No. They are protecting this new and developing language.
Very true... my issue has never been on whether these documents are true or not... it's just that the whole thing is lost in a big quagmire of doubt. There's literally no concrete proof one way or the other. And in my philosophy class, we learned that saying "there's no proof so A" is a fallacy. Thus, I differ all judgement on the issue due to lack of evidence.
But lack of evidence or not, CBS is stuck with a crap pile on its hands, because the evidence they've presented lies in a Schroedinger's Cat Box. Either it was all fabricated and deceteful, and CBS is a lying sack of crap, or it's true and it's very damaging to the President.
But that's the problem now-a-days. Truely, the best medium for providing scrutiny is the internet and in general the public at large. With how large the Internet is, and with the Internet being driven by geeks with tons of knowledge about numerous facts, and processes, the chances of a photoshoped, or hoaxed anything standing up to the light of the internet is just incredibly thin.
Message to hoaxers, and holders of questionable authenticity... if you want anyone to actually believe you, then show it to a select group of people with NDAs, and then have them spread your hype and message, and don't actually expose your evidence, (or "evidence" as the case may be). You know... like Infineon Labs.:)
Good point, I just don't see the point of a major company resorting to decete, and questionable data to get attention...
Of course, CBS seems to have done this themselves, or at least they're being very sharply criticized over what they've produced to the public...
*NOT* to crack open that big can of worms, but only to point out, that indeed, some companies of very high regard may distort or at least come under some sort of credible scrutiny of the information the present. Neglecting all possiblities of this being true or not (I've made no decision) but the inarguable point is that there is a credibility issue against CBS because of this.
God, I'm so sick of discussing this that I'm changing my sig.
First of all, if you have a secure channel to transmit an OTP, then you could very well send the uncoded message along the same channel.
Send a stack of OTPs? Ok, what if someone intercepts those, and makes copies? What do you do if someone finds these OTPs, and is then able to later decode the message?
The fact of the matter is that even with an OTP, the size of the message has increased by a factor of 2, and you've guarenteed that having one full portion of the message cannot retrieve the rest of the message reliably.
So, rather than attempting to mathematically attack the available encrypted text, you physically/socially attack the security of the OTP. And guess which of these ways better protects security?
Entirely honestly, I would much rather entrust my data to an incredibly difficult mathematical problem, than another person. That's because I know that social engineering is almost always the weakest link in any security system.
The only place an OTP makes sense is when transmitting over a channel where you can know for certain if someone listens in. Such as a quatum communications channel, where an observer will automatically collapse the message. In this situation, you can guarentee that your message has not been intercepted, and you could safely transmit an OTP, followed by the actual message, and be certain that if anyone listened to the cyphertext, that they would not be able to unencrypt it, because you wouldn't have sent it if you had known that the OTP hadn't been sniffed.
But then you run into the problem that, you sent a message the exact same length of the message that you were intending to send, and you know it wasn't listened to. So, the question becomes again. If you know your message wasn't listened to, then why didn't you just send the unencrypt message? You'd have saved time.
It's honestly a sort of Catch 22. Your message is only safe if the OTP is safe, but if you transmitted the OTP securely, then you didn't need to transmit it at all, because your message would have been just as secure.
There remains, and ever will remain, no way to communicate a message with another party while guarenteeing security if someone can listen to every channel of communication that you have with the other person. Is the OTP the best option for giving you the best chances at security? Yes. Is it impossible to break? Not if they can intercept/retrieve the OTP.
So I ask you again. If you can send an OTP through a channel that you know to be secure, then why wouldn't you just transmit the message through that channel, since you know it to be secure.
Well, the big problem with modern CISC->RISC chips (to call them what they really are) is that you spend a lot of time figuring out what to do, rather than actually doing anything useful.
So, you have this HUGE chunck of silicon wasting energy, and making heat, just to figure out what it ought to be doing in the first place.
This is why I hate CISC right now. Not because it isn't fast (it is), but because it's just totally ill-thoughtout in every way. It's so ad-hoc, and almost random that I feel I'd be much happier using an architecture that was designed from a modern standpoint, such that it can spend as much silicon as possible doing what it should be doing, rather than figuring out what it ought to be doing.
But remember, PearPC is a total hardware system emulator. It can't take any "speed hacks" that don't actually keep all the same side-effects. PearPC is much more compatible, and is responsible for emulating every feature of the hardware.
Read this well: PearPC is slow because it must emulate the hardware, while this project (and SoftPear) are merely emulating the behavior of the program.
This program "emulates" the graphics of the process by making native calls, PearPC emulates the graphics by calling the PowerPC OS system calls, which call the PowerPC graphics driver, which writes to a framebuffer, which we use to update our window, which goes through native graphics calls, through native graphics drivers, and finally are effecting the native hardware.
PearPC does so much MORE than this project must do, that it's just plain apparent that it must be slower.
Also, PearPC does all mmu operations through software right now, which means that there's about a 20-30 times overhead for memory operations. Yes, 20-30 times overhead. Sebastian is working at this time on a HWMMU implementation that will bring this much closer to 5-10. (But since we must still emulate the full PowerPC MMU, this will still create more overhead than this program that can just translate all these MMU operations into native calls, and native operations)
Also, right now there's no graphics emulation... so it's not going to run anything that uses OpenGL quickly at all.
I see your argument here. But again, the problem is that a very small group of people can effectively remove school prayer. There was a town where all the students participated in a student led school prayer. A single atheist mother comes into town with her two children, and she complains, and the school prayer is removed. You literally have an entire student body that wants the prayer, but the interests of a single lone parent outweighs that entire group, due to the interests that school should be seperated from religion.
It has actually been determined that children may not even pray at school if they were in public. This is basicly saying that they can't do it at all, even silently.
It just tends to be that a number of people (usually from the left) are very strongly opposed to suppressing any point of view, but they forget that those views that feel that some material is inappropriate and shouldn't be discussed, or should wait for a later period is also a valid point of view. They want to tear down and away all these closed-minded people, but they forget that in doing so, they are being closed-minded themselves.
I as a parent am solely legally responsible for determining what I think is appropriate content for my child to see. I was witness to one parent taking his children to see Super Troopers (elementary school age children for sure). This disgusted me, and I feel that it was wrong, but I didn't tell him it was wrong. They're not my kids, and I have no right to tell him how to parent his children.
What I want, is the same respect. If I feel that my child shouldn't be reading about rape until such an age that I feel it is appropriate, then I have that right. And guess what? This is a situation where the minority's rights override any majority's rights.
It's honestly just that simple. I can't have prayer in school, because the minority's rights supercede any majority opinion, so also does it follow in this situation.
Many people complain about "Banned" Books, and many people complain about Prayer in School. Both are arguing to have the majorities opinions outweigh the minority to a point of oppression.
1) you're very much accurate on that mark. The information provided is totally inappropriate as it doesn't provide any context. They present a list, and claim that some freedom is being violated here, without providing accuracy on exactly how.
2) Saying that my child who I feel shouldn't have to watch "Apocalypse Now" can just do something else during the time, unfortunately creates an exclusion process, and this is the same tactic used against public prayer in school. The people against the school prayer (even when entirely student lead) can't just provide an alternate activity, or they can just abstain. This will generate a stigma. And actually, I knew that philosophy majors tend to make incredibly good lawyers because they are (and this is quoted from a "Why study philosophy" brochure) "belligerently argumentative."
3.) The school system is unfortunately driven by a more overriding constraint than just "teach my child". They need provide a safe school environment, and an appropriate school environment.
Why can't we have prayer in school? That's violating the right of freedom of expression, and the freedom of religious action. Why? because it violates the rights of too many others to allow it.
Why can't we have certain books in a school, or as a classroom assignment? Because some parents feel that some books are inappropriate for children at that age level. We're going to violate some people's right to this freedom against censorship, because there is an overriding freedom being infringed upon by allowing these books. That is the right for a parent to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.
So, basicly you're making the claim in 3, that the right for the lazy parents, who don't want to do their job as a parent, are overriding the rights of the active parents, who pay attention to what their children are doing and reading in school, and outside of school.
You basicly want to punish these parents who are taking an active role in their childs development (as they feel a good parent should) because some parents want to be lazy bums and let their kids do what they will? Honestly, if a child has a parent such as this, they're going to care less about what books are in the library, and more about what kind of drugs are being sold on the street.
Squeeky wheel gets the grease, and guess what? A legal guardian of a child has final say over what is appropriate or inappropriate for that child to read, and they should have every right in the world to suggest that a book not be available for a child to read. And if you say this is them pressing their social beliefs on others, well by telling my child he can't pray in school, you're doing exactly the same thing.
YOU may have had enough contact with sexual material at that age, but I for one sure didn't.
Don't think that a 15 year old does not have to be shielded from it, because it's not your right to say what a parent (who has legal guardianship over a 15 year old for at least 3 more years, unless they emancipate themselves) can determine is appropriate and inappropriate for their 15 year old.
And your opinion that it would be better for a 15 year old to be familiar with it means that you expect to just bombard people with information that they may not even want to hear, just because you think it's good for them.
Well, if you think my child should have to hear about rape at the age of 15, then I think your child should have to hear about God at the age of 15.
Stop saying that children already know this stuff, because it shows a naivity against the fact that some children don't know about this stuff. And you saying that they should know about it? That's not your right, you're not their parent.
So shut up about how person XY should have to raise their child!
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedb ooksweek.htm -- Link from the "Banned Book Week" Nothing about any actually banned books, only a link to the Challenged book list
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/chall en gedbanned/challengedbanned.htm -- Link from the "Challenged and Banned Books" no actual listing of any books that are actually banned according to the "true" definition of banned.
In fact, the only list that the site seems to provide is a list of Challenged books, and not at all a list of those books that they would actually term as banned.
To quote you back: "Fuckin' moron" Give me a link to a REAL banned book, as they define it, and then we'll talk. Giving me stupid, childish directions that make you feel better, are not helpful.
My understanding was that she was the parent of a elementary school child.
As for the appropriateness of To Kill a Mockingbird in the school system, there are parents who believe that their childrem should not be exposed to sexual material of any kind before their 16th birthday.
You'll agree that a child before the age of 16 could be capable of reading To Kill a Mockingbird (usually, this would be their Sophmore, or Junior year, I believe)
Should a parent raise an objection that their child should not have to read this material carry any weight than saying that other children cannot pray in school?
"We could just waive him reading it." vs. "He could just not pray."
"We could give him alternate literature for the assignment" vs. "We could provide alternate activities for them during the prayer."
The only solution that we in America have found is to conceed to the minority, and say that it is inappropriate to press ones religious beliefs on another during school. To tell a child that he must read To Kill a Mockingbird, when his parents feel it would violate their religious beliefs, would be wrong. To supply him with an alternate assignment during the duration of the rest of the class reading it would create an exclusion.
Give me a better solution, and I won't complain when my 15 year old is presented with To Kill a Mockingbird as a classroom assignment. If you don't, and you say it's my fault, and I'm intolerant, then I will continue to push for my child's right to pray publicly and openly in school.
I'm reading each reference before writing any response to your comments.
Just for the jerks in the audience. I know there are similies in this post that I refer to as metaphorical. Honestly, I don't seen any reason to refer to them by seperate terms. So if you're going to nitpick, find something else to bother me with.
1) overt sexuality ( Song of Solomon)
SoS 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts." Entirely anatomical reference.
SoS 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies." Except for the word "breast" how is this overt?
SoS 5:3 "I have taken off my robe-- must I put it on again? I have washed my feet-- must I soil them again?" Ok, so she's naked, we know that, but would a child expect that? (answer: no, neither do they really understand the "meaning" of being naked)
SoS 7:3 "Your breast are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle." Again, except for the word "breast" how is this overt?
SoS 7:7-8 "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. 8. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.' May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your break like apples," Closest thing to overt I've seen so far, and this is highly metaphorical just like the others. Seriously, anyone who would call this overtly sexual is highly repressed, and would claim that any reference to "breast" would be inappropriate.
SoS 8:1 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me." This reference to "breast" is a description of a child. It's not intended to be at all sexual, but rather since all babies at that time nursed from their mothers breast, it's a reaffirmation that he would be her brother. Why her brother? OMG, Incest, no. She's saying, if only you were my brother, I could kiss you without being looked down upon by society.
SoS 8:5 "Who is this coming up from the desert leaning on her lover? Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she gave you birth." I don't know how someone could find this verse sexually overt, but I thought I'd include it just to be cautious.
SoS 8:8 "We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown." This is a description of the age of a sister. Now-a-days, we'd say, "she hasn't developed yet." But would that be any less accurate or descriptive of a statement?
SoS 8:10 "I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment." Can you REALLY think this is overtly sexual? I mean, metaphorically, you can see her implied meaning, but there's nothing overt at all here.
SoS 8:12 "But my own vineyard is mine to give..." It's obvious to _US_ that she's speaking of her virginity. But why would a child have any reason to think she was being anything but literal.
That's it for Song of Solomon. I must ask, have you even READ Song of Solomon? Because for you to claim the thing is overtly sexual implies that you have not. Really, reading through the thing, I got more "excited" from the social idea that it's naughty, than I ever could from the passages themselves.
None the less, some Bibles (especially those for children) either highly edit this section, or omit it entirely.
2) rape ( forgot the actual reference, but a man rapes a woman, then marries her to avoid charges)
I need a more accurate reference if this isn't what you're refering to but: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as
I've looked at their site. I find no list of banned books, only a list of challenged books.
Please provide a direct link to a truely banned book, and then I will begin actually considering your usage of challenged/banned vs just plain "banned".
The problem is that these sexually graphic novels may be available to the child to find in their school library.
There _IS_ nothing wrong with you having a graphic book about sexuality and just not lending it to six year olds. But when a library specifically only deals with children between the age of 4 and 9, then there should be some discretion in what books they make available.
Teachers don't check out book from their school library for themselves, and when they do check out books from their school ibrary, it's for a child.
The Old Testament may contain a lot of material that would in our modern "enlightened" era find displeasing. But it doesn't graphically describe any of it.
Pick up a bible, and reference the verses you're describing. You'll see that they are not graphic.
As for Song of Solomon being graphic, it's actually more metaphorical than graphic.
The thing is that the ALA is counting any book that a parent raises an objection about, and thus some action is taken upon the book.
You've said the school has every right to choose what books they stock. Right, but the ALA will list a book as "banned" just because the school chooses not the shelve it.
"If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children." Such a book that would be removed would still be counted by the ALA as a banned book.
"But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No." So a single lone mother who objects to an elementary age child reading a book describing, lets say, a gratutiously descriptive account of a rape, would be wrong and inappropriate?
The children can still read these books, if the parents want them to. But the same as a school wouldn't allow an R rated movie to be shown to any child on school grounds (regardless of who owns it, and who's watching it, and what kind of parental permission they have) there are some books that are INAPPROPRIATE for the student at school.
But they can still read the books at home, because they're not actually BANNED. They're just this nebulous thing that the ALA calls "banned", because they have had action taken against them, and have been removed, or moved due to the objections of one or MORE parents.
Not only that, but many of the books weren't even banned, but the parents rather requested that they be simply moved. As in "This doesn't seem appropriate for a first grader to be reading. Do you think you could move it to a fourth or fifth grade level area?" The ALA makes no distinction about this, and the book being "banned".
Also, I heard a story from a parent, whose child in the second grade (it was elementary school at the least), was reading a book that had a vivid description of a rape scene.... YES! This child is being subjected to a book, that were it a movie, it would have been rated R (or at best PG-13) and wouldn't be able to see on their own. And heaven FORBID that the school would sanction such a movie to be shown to the child.
So, the parent complains, and the school complies, and the ALA lists it as a "banned" book.
The ALA has a decent idea here, fight censorship, but they have to be aware, we should but the same sort of standards on our literature that we put on our movies. There simply are some books that aren't appropriate for children.
And NEVER have these "banned" books been truly banned. If the parent, or the child really wanted the book, they could obtain it for their child to read. It was just felt by the school system, that it wasn't appropriate for them to supply it.
Obviously it gets translated in to actual language at some point. Given "mirrored" and "non-mirrored" being the thing the examiners are asking for.
But considering that identifying the character is constant if it's mirrored or not, then converting that into language. You find that whether the character were mirrored or not, then it was the same time to recognize it, and express it.
The only difference they found in the experiment, was the linear relation to the rotation angle. That's it. No one was sitting there thinking "Hm, that's an R backwards rotated by 45 degrees to the right." No, they were visually rotating the R, until it was right-side up, and then parsed it, and expressed it.
I can fold cubes, and other shapes incredibly well, and I don't ever think about it in a linguistic way. The only time I verbalize it, is to remember a specific configuration, so that I can express it to the tester.
I wouldn't doubt that it's annoying. Transliteration almost never works well. A lot of the features of the Japenese writing systems (the kanas, not the kanji) just can't be expressed at all well decently with transliteration.
It's also funny to see a beginning Japanese learner, who's learning it all through romaaji, correcting someone for writing something like "konnichi ha", or "senpai". These forms are actually more accurate transliterations, while "kon'nichi wa" and "sempai" more accurately express the English spelling.
That's why I like to use the "native" writing format for every language individually. It solves so many problems of stuff just pissing the natives off.
Acutally the Inuit language is synthetic, so rather than putting adjectives near nouns to express the adjective-noun relationship, they attach them to the actual word.
Thus, Inuit in fact has an infinite number of words for snow, as they do also for skyscraper.
Well, this study given shows that a group of people whose language is uncapable of expressing accurately a value larger than two are incapable of accurately determining the number of elements in a group that is larger than three.
This isn't at all very surprising when you think about it. If I were to place in front of you a pile of sticks, and have a group of let's say 9 sticks. And I tell you to accurately produce the same number of sticks that I have in my pile, what is the first thing you will do?
You'll count them, that's what you'll do. And in English, since we can count high enough to count all the sticks, we would arrive at the number which we have named "nine", and then we would proceed to then count one by one from the big pile of sticks, until we have nine in our hand, and claim to have reproduced the stack.
Now, imagine that your language can't actually express numbers higher than two. You look at the pile he has, you count, "one, two, a lot of them." Then you grab from the stack "a lot of them."
Technically, in their language they have accomplished the goal of the excercise. They have created a pile of sticks with exactly the same "number" of sticks in it. Both have "many" elements in them.
Now explain the rules as such. That they need to be certain that for every stick in your pile, there must be a stick in their pile. I believe they would work by groups of two. "one, two" then grab two sticks. Repeat process. I believe it's entirely possible to explain to them how to accomplish the goal of the excercise properly, and it's entirely possible that the excercise was flawed.
If we as Americans were told by a group of Russians to state if two colors were the same color, would be amazed that we would pick on color that they have a common word for, which is between purple and blue, as being the same color as either blue or purple. They would say, "look, it's effecting their thought, that they don't have a word for this color." But in truth, the task was given to us in English, and we accomplished the task in English, not Russian.
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but the pidgin is the words and constructions used by the parents in an environment, where they need to communicate. They bring words together until they communcate their information.
The children under the primary language learning period then take these most independant words and structures and produce a creole from them.
Oddly, these creoles share a lot of traits with English usually. Although it's generally accepted that English is not a creole.
These children are having their language protected. This is a developing language, and should be protected the same as any other language.
We have languages that are dying all the time, because their speakers are essentially being given a language that they are told is superior to their own.
Why do you feel that their language is so unimportant that it should be protected? The fact that scientific information is being collected from these children is fine. The newer kids are not being deprived of language, they are being allowed to learn their own language to use, and not being forced to learn someone elses.
These children were deprived of language before, and now are not being deprived. The older kids, who were deprived of language before this, would have been given no better opportunity had they been taught an existing sign language.
Is it unfortunate that some some of these children had been denied the ability to learn languages? Yes. Are they being deprived anymore? No. They are protecting this new and developing language.
It's smokes and mirrors, Is says!
Very true... my issue has never been on whether these documents are true or not... it's just that the whole thing is lost in a big quagmire of doubt. There's literally no concrete proof one way or the other. And in my philosophy class, we learned that saying "there's no proof so A" is a fallacy. Thus, I differ all judgement on the issue due to lack of evidence.
:)
But lack of evidence or not, CBS is stuck with a crap pile on its hands, because the evidence they've presented lies in a Schroedinger's Cat Box. Either it was all fabricated and deceteful, and CBS is a lying sack of crap, or it's true and it's very damaging to the President.
But that's the problem now-a-days. Truely, the best medium for providing scrutiny is the internet and in general the public at large. With how large the Internet is, and with the Internet being driven by geeks with tons of knowledge about numerous facts, and processes, the chances of a photoshoped, or hoaxed anything standing up to the light of the internet is just incredibly thin.
Message to hoaxers, and holders of questionable authenticity... if you want anyone to actually believe you, then show it to a select group of people with NDAs, and then have them spread your hype and message, and don't actually expose your evidence, (or "evidence" as the case may be). You know... like Infineon Labs.
Good point, I just don't see the point of a major company resorting to decete, and questionable data to get attention...
Of course, CBS seems to have done this themselves, or at least they're being very sharply criticized over what they've produced to the public...
*NOT* to crack open that big can of worms, but only to point out, that indeed, some companies of very high regard may distort or at least come under some sort of credible scrutiny of the information the present. Neglecting all possiblities of this being true or not (I've made no decision) but the inarguable point is that there is a credibility issue against CBS because of this.
What kind of weird conspiracy are these people trying to set up?
WHY would Intel lie about providing a dual-core processor?
WHY would Intel think it better to showcase a dual processor system and call it a dual-core?
WHY does this person think that Intel would be incapable of producing the demo?
Hm... maybe I should RTFA, and have a good laugh.
God, I'm so sick of discussing this that I'm changing my sig.
First of all, if you have a secure channel to transmit an OTP, then you could very well send the uncoded message along the same channel.
Send a stack of OTPs? Ok, what if someone intercepts those, and makes copies? What do you do if someone finds these OTPs, and is then able to later decode the message?
The fact of the matter is that even with an OTP, the size of the message has increased by a factor of 2, and you've guarenteed that having one full portion of the message cannot retrieve the rest of the message reliably.
So, rather than attempting to mathematically attack the available encrypted text, you physically/socially attack the security of the OTP. And guess which of these ways better protects security?
Entirely honestly, I would much rather entrust my data to an incredibly difficult mathematical problem, than another person. That's because I know that social engineering is almost always the weakest link in any security system.
The only place an OTP makes sense is when transmitting over a channel where you can know for certain if someone listens in. Such as a quatum communications channel, where an observer will automatically collapse the message. In this situation, you can guarentee that your message has not been intercepted, and you could safely transmit an OTP, followed by the actual message, and be certain that if anyone listened to the cyphertext, that they would not be able to unencrypt it, because you wouldn't have sent it if you had known that the OTP hadn't been sniffed.
But then you run into the problem that, you sent a message the exact same length of the message that you were intending to send, and you know it wasn't listened to. So, the question becomes again. If you know your message wasn't listened to, then why didn't you just send the unencrypt message? You'd have saved time.
It's honestly a sort of Catch 22. Your message is only safe if the OTP is safe, but if you transmitted the OTP securely, then you didn't need to transmit it at all, because your message would have been just as secure.
There remains, and ever will remain, no way to communicate a message with another party while guarenteeing security if someone can listen to every channel of communication that you have with the other person. Is the OTP the best option for giving you the best chances at security? Yes. Is it impossible to break? Not if they can intercept/retrieve the OTP.
So I ask you again. If you can send an OTP through a channel that you know to be secure, then why wouldn't you just transmit the message through that channel, since you know it to be secure.
Well, the big problem with modern CISC->RISC chips (to call them what they really are) is that you spend a lot of time figuring out what to do, rather than actually doing anything useful.
So, you have this HUGE chunck of silicon wasting energy, and making heat, just to figure out what it ought to be doing in the first place.
This is why I hate CISC right now. Not because it isn't fast (it is), but because it's just totally ill-thoughtout in every way. It's so ad-hoc, and almost random that I feel I'd be much happier using an architecture that was designed from a modern standpoint, such that it can spend as much silicon as possible doing what it should be doing, rather than figuring out what it ought to be doing.
--- author of AltiVec for PearPC
Yes, it's very slow. VERY VERY slow.
But remember, PearPC is a total hardware system emulator. It can't take any "speed hacks" that don't actually keep all the same side-effects. PearPC is much more compatible, and is responsible for emulating every feature of the hardware.
Read this well: PearPC is slow because it must emulate the hardware, while this project (and SoftPear) are merely emulating the behavior of the program.
This program "emulates" the graphics of the process by making native calls, PearPC emulates the graphics by calling the PowerPC OS system calls, which call the PowerPC graphics driver, which writes to a framebuffer, which we use to update our window, which goes through native graphics calls, through native graphics drivers, and finally are effecting the native hardware.
PearPC does so much MORE than this project must do, that it's just plain apparent that it must be slower.
Also, PearPC does all mmu operations through software right now, which means that there's about a 20-30 times overhead for memory operations. Yes, 20-30 times overhead. Sebastian is working at this time on a HWMMU implementation that will bring this much closer to 5-10. (But since we must still emulate the full PowerPC MMU, this will still create more overhead than this program that can just translate all these MMU operations into native calls, and native operations)
Also, right now there's no graphics emulation... so it's not going to run anything that uses OpenGL quickly at all.
I see your argument here. But again, the problem is that a very small group of people can effectively remove school prayer. There was a town where all the students participated in a student led school prayer. A single atheist mother comes into town with her two children, and she complains, and the school prayer is removed. You literally have an entire student body that wants the prayer, but the interests of a single lone parent outweighs that entire group, due to the interests that school should be seperated from religion.
It has actually been determined that children may not even pray at school if they were in public. This is basicly saying that they can't do it at all, even silently.
It just tends to be that a number of people (usually from the left) are very strongly opposed to suppressing any point of view, but they forget that those views that feel that some material is inappropriate and shouldn't be discussed, or should wait for a later period is also a valid point of view. They want to tear down and away all these closed-minded people, but they forget that in doing so, they are being closed-minded themselves.
I as a parent am solely legally responsible for determining what I think is appropriate content for my child to see. I was witness to one parent taking his children to see Super Troopers (elementary school age children for sure). This disgusted me, and I feel that it was wrong, but I didn't tell him it was wrong. They're not my kids, and I have no right to tell him how to parent his children.
What I want, is the same respect. If I feel that my child shouldn't be reading about rape until such an age that I feel it is appropriate, then I have that right. And guess what? This is a situation where the minority's rights override any majority's rights.
It's honestly just that simple. I can't have prayer in school, because the minority's rights supercede any majority opinion, so also does it follow in this situation.
Many people complain about "Banned" Books, and many people complain about Prayer in School. Both are arguing to have the majorities opinions outweigh the minority to a point of oppression.
1) you're very much accurate on that mark. The information provided is totally inappropriate as it doesn't provide any context. They present a list, and claim that some freedom is being violated here, without providing accuracy on exactly how.
2) Saying that my child who I feel shouldn't have to watch "Apocalypse Now" can just do something else during the time, unfortunately creates an exclusion process, and this is the same tactic used against public prayer in school. The people against the school prayer (even when entirely student lead) can't just provide an alternate activity, or they can just abstain. This will generate a stigma. And actually, I knew that philosophy majors tend to make incredibly good lawyers because they are (and this is quoted from a "Why study philosophy" brochure) "belligerently argumentative."
3.) The school system is unfortunately driven by a more overriding constraint than just "teach my child". They need provide a safe school environment, and an appropriate school environment.
Why can't we have prayer in school? That's violating the right of freedom of expression, and the freedom of religious action. Why? because it violates the rights of too many others to allow it.
Why can't we have certain books in a school, or as a classroom assignment? Because some parents feel that some books are inappropriate for children at that age level. We're going to violate some people's right to this freedom against censorship, because there is an overriding freedom being infringed upon by allowing these books. That is the right for a parent to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.
So, basicly you're making the claim in 3, that the right for the lazy parents, who don't want to do their job as a parent, are overriding the rights of the active parents, who pay attention to what their children are doing and reading in school, and outside of school.
You basicly want to punish these parents who are taking an active role in their childs development (as they feel a good parent should) because some parents want to be lazy bums and let their kids do what they will? Honestly, if a child has a parent such as this, they're going to care less about what books are in the library, and more about what kind of drugs are being sold on the street.
Squeeky wheel gets the grease, and guess what? A legal guardian of a child has final say over what is appropriate or inappropriate for that child to read, and they should have every right in the world to suggest that a book not be available for a child to read. And if you say this is them pressing their social beliefs on others, well by telling my child he can't pray in school, you're doing exactly the same thing.
YOU may have had enough contact with sexual material at that age, but I for one sure didn't.
Don't think that a 15 year old does not have to be shielded from it, because it's not your right to say what a parent (who has legal guardianship over a 15 year old for at least 3 more years, unless they emancipate themselves) can determine is appropriate and inappropriate for their 15 year old.
And your opinion that it would be better for a 15 year old to be familiar with it means that you expect to just bombard people with information that they may not even want to hear, just because you think it's good for them.
Well, if you think my child should have to hear about rape at the age of 15, then I think your child should have to hear about God at the age of 15.
Stop saying that children already know this stuff, because it shows a naivity against the fact that some children don't know about this stuff. And you saying that they should know about it? That's not your right, you're not their parent.
So shut up about how person XY should have to raise their child!
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedb ooksweek.htm
l en gedbanned/challengedbanned.htm
-- Link from the "Banned Book Week" Nothing about any actually banned books, only a link to the Challenged book list
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/chal
-- Link from the "Challenged and Banned Books" no actual listing of any books that are actually banned according to the "true" definition of banned.
In fact, the only list that the site seems to provide is a list of Challenged books, and not at all a list of those books that they would actually term as banned.
To quote you back: "Fuckin' moron" Give me a link to a REAL banned book, as they define it, and then we'll talk. Giving me stupid, childish directions that make you feel better, are not helpful.
My understanding was that she was the parent of a elementary school child.
As for the appropriateness of To Kill a Mockingbird in the school system, there are parents who believe that their childrem should not be exposed to sexual material of any kind before their 16th birthday.
You'll agree that a child before the age of 16 could be capable of reading To Kill a Mockingbird (usually, this would be their Sophmore, or Junior year, I believe)
Should a parent raise an objection that their child should not have to read this material carry any weight than saying that other children cannot pray in school?
"We could just waive him reading it." vs. "He could just not pray."
"We could give him alternate literature for the assignment" vs. "We could provide alternate activities for them during the prayer."
The only solution that we in America have found is to conceed to the minority, and say that it is inappropriate to press ones religious beliefs on another during school. To tell a child that he must read To Kill a Mockingbird, when his parents feel it would violate their religious beliefs, would be wrong. To supply him with an alternate assignment during the duration of the rest of the class reading it would create an exclusion.
Give me a better solution, and I won't complain when my 15 year old is presented with To Kill a Mockingbird as a classroom assignment. If you don't, and you say it's my fault, and I'm intolerant, then I will continue to push for my child's right to pray publicly and openly in school.
Just for the jerks in the audience. I know there are similies in this post that I refer to as metaphorical. Honestly, I don't seen any reason to refer to them by seperate terms. So if you're going to nitpick, find something else to bother me with.
SoS 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."
Entirely anatomical reference.
SoS 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies."
Except for the word "breast" how is this overt?
SoS 5:3 "I have taken off my robe-- must I put it on again? I have washed my feet-- must I soil them again?"
Ok, so she's naked, we know that, but would a child expect that? (answer: no, neither do they really understand the "meaning" of being naked)
SoS 7:3 "Your breast are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."
Again, except for the word "breast" how is this overt?
SoS 7:7-8 "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. 8. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.' May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your break like apples,"
Closest thing to overt I've seen so far, and this is highly metaphorical just like the others. Seriously, anyone who would call this overtly sexual is highly repressed, and would claim that any reference to "breast" would be inappropriate.
SoS 8:1 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me."
This reference to "breast" is a description of a child. It's not intended to be at all sexual, but rather since all babies at that time nursed from their mothers breast, it's a reaffirmation that he would be her brother. Why her brother? OMG, Incest, no. She's saying, if only you were my brother, I could kiss you without being looked down upon by society.
SoS 8:5 "Who is this coming up from the desert leaning on her lover? Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she gave you birth."
I don't know how someone could find this verse sexually overt, but I thought I'd include it just to be cautious.
SoS 8:8 "We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown."
This is a description of the age of a sister. Now-a-days, we'd say, "she hasn't developed yet." But would that be any less accurate or descriptive of a statement?
SoS 8:10 "I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment."
Can you REALLY think this is overtly sexual? I mean, metaphorically, you can see her implied meaning, but there's nothing overt at all here.
SoS 8:12 "But my own vineyard is mine to give..."
It's obvious to _US_ that she's speaking of her virginity. But why would a child have any reason to think she was being anything but literal.
That's it for Song of Solomon. I must ask, have you even READ Song of Solomon? Because for you to claim the thing is overtly sexual implies that you have not. Really, reading through the thing, I got more "excited" from the social idea that it's naughty, than I ever could from the passages themselves.
None the less, some Bibles (especially those for children) either highly edit this section, or omit it entirely.
I need a more accurate reference if this isn't what you're refering to but:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as
I've looked at their site. I find no list of banned books, only a list of challenged books.
Please provide a direct link to a truely banned book, and then I will begin actually considering your usage of challenged/banned vs just plain "banned".
The problem is that these sexually graphic novels may be available to the child to find in their school library.
There _IS_ nothing wrong with you having a graphic book about sexuality and just not lending it to six year olds. But when a library specifically only deals with children between the age of 4 and 9, then there should be some discretion in what books they make available.
Teachers don't check out book from their school library for themselves, and when they do check out books from their school ibrary, it's for a child.
The Old Testament may contain a lot of material that would in our modern "enlightened" era find displeasing. But it doesn't graphically describe any of it.
Pick up a bible, and reference the verses you're describing. You'll see that they are not graphic.
As for Song of Solomon being graphic, it's actually more metaphorical than graphic.
The thing is that the ALA is counting any book that a parent raises an objection about, and thus some action is taken upon the book.
You've said the school has every right to choose what books they stock. Right, but the ALA will list a book as "banned" just because the school chooses not the shelve it.
"If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children." Such a book that would be removed would still be counted by the ALA as a banned book.
"But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No." So a single lone mother who objects to an elementary age child reading a book describing, lets say, a gratutiously descriptive account of a rape, would be wrong and inappropriate?
The children can still read these books, if the parents want them to. But the same as a school wouldn't allow an R rated movie to be shown to any child on school grounds (regardless of who owns it, and who's watching it, and what kind of parental permission they have) there are some books that are INAPPROPRIATE for the student at school.
But they can still read the books at home, because they're not actually BANNED. They're just this nebulous thing that the ALA calls "banned", because they have had action taken against them, and have been removed, or moved due to the objections of one or MORE parents.
Not only that, but many of the books weren't even banned, but the parents rather requested that they be simply moved. As in "This doesn't seem appropriate for a first grader to be reading. Do you think you could move it to a fourth or fifth grade level area?" The ALA makes no distinction about this, and the book being "banned".
... YES! This child is being subjected to a book, that were it a movie, it would have been rated R (or at best PG-13) and wouldn't be able to see on their own. And heaven FORBID that the school would sanction such a movie to be shown to the child.
Also, I heard a story from a parent, whose child in the second grade (it was elementary school at the least), was reading a book that had a vivid description of a rape scene.
So, the parent complains, and the school complies, and the ALA lists it as a "banned" book.
The ALA has a decent idea here, fight censorship, but they have to be aware, we should but the same sort of standards on our literature that we put on our movies. There simply are some books that aren't appropriate for children.
And NEVER have these "banned" books been truly banned. If the parent, or the child really wanted the book, they could obtain it for their child to read. It was just felt by the school system, that it wasn't appropriate for them to supply it.
WHAT?
Obviously it gets translated in to actual language at some point. Given "mirrored" and "non-mirrored" being the thing the examiners are asking for.
But considering that identifying the character is constant if it's mirrored or not, then converting that into language. You find that whether the character were mirrored or not, then it was the same time to recognize it, and express it.
The only difference they found in the experiment, was the linear relation to the rotation angle. That's it. No one was sitting there thinking "Hm, that's an R backwards rotated by 45 degrees to the right." No, they were visually rotating the R, until it was right-side up, and then parsed it, and expressed it.
I can fold cubes, and other shapes incredibly well, and I don't ever think about it in a linguistic way. The only time I verbalize it, is to remember a specific configuration, so that I can express it to the tester.
I wouldn't doubt that it's annoying. Transliteration almost never works well. A lot of the features of the Japenese writing systems (the kanas, not the kanji) just can't be expressed at all well decently with transliteration.
It's also funny to see a beginning Japanese learner, who's learning it all through romaaji, correcting someone for writing something like "konnichi ha", or "senpai". These forms are actually more accurate transliterations, while "kon'nichi wa" and "sempai" more accurately express the English spelling.
That's why I like to use the "native" writing format for every language individually. It solves so many problems of stuff just pissing the natives off.
Acutally the Inuit language is synthetic, so rather than putting adjectives near nouns to express the adjective-noun relationship, they attach them to the actual word.
Thus, Inuit in fact has an infinite number of words for snow, as they do also for skyscraper.
It's just the way the language works.
Well, this study given shows that a group of people whose language is uncapable of expressing accurately a value larger than two are incapable of accurately determining the number of elements in a group that is larger than three.
This isn't at all very surprising when you think about it. If I were to place in front of you a pile of sticks, and have a group of let's say 9 sticks. And I tell you to accurately produce the same number of sticks that I have in my pile, what is the first thing you will do?
You'll count them, that's what you'll do. And in English, since we can count high enough to count all the sticks, we would arrive at the number which we have named "nine", and then we would proceed to then count one by one from the big pile of sticks, until we have nine in our hand, and claim to have reproduced the stack.
Now, imagine that your language can't actually express numbers higher than two. You look at the pile he has, you count, "one, two, a lot of them." Then you grab from the stack "a lot of them."
Technically, in their language they have accomplished the goal of the excercise. They have created a pile of sticks with exactly the same "number" of sticks in it. Both have "many" elements in them.
Now explain the rules as such. That they need to be certain that for every stick in your pile, there must be a stick in their pile. I believe they would work by groups of two. "one, two" then grab two sticks. Repeat process. I believe it's entirely possible to explain to them how to accomplish the goal of the excercise properly, and it's entirely possible that the excercise was flawed.
If we as Americans were told by a group of Russians to state if two colors were the same color, would be amazed that we would pick on color that they have a common word for, which is between purple and blue, as being the same color as either blue or purple. They would say, "look, it's effecting their thought, that they don't have a word for this color." But in truth, the task was given to us in English, and we accomplished the task in English, not Russian.