Anything but the neck snap is rather cruel (supposedly). And the decapitation is just icky. The second is reason enough for me, but the first is against the word of the constitution.
Hangings aren't simple. They can turn into decapitations if the drop is too long for the wieght/neck thickness of the "participant". Decapitations are such it is believed you will see your head roll off your body (brigns whole new meaning to the guillotine). If the drop is too short, you slowly axphyiate the person. This takes longer than you think, and supposedly quite gruesome to watch.
There is a certain "sweet spot" that's pretty hard to hit, where you snap the person's neck, killing them instantly. However the procedure is far from simple. And really gruesome.
You act like Buddha developed meditation and has the patent on it. In India, meditation was practiced farther back than Buddhism in the practices of Jain (a beautiful religion if such a thing is possible) and in Hindu beliefs. I was quite shocked to learn this at the presentation of Jain/Hindu rituals to me by an ex-girlfriend. Harmonizing yourself with the world was sometimes a purpose of meditation, other times meditation is closer to a repetitive prayer to bring oneself closer to God, and other times, other things completely.
I count relaxation and calming the noisy mind as both harmonizing oneself with the world, so that makes the "corporate" push to be at much the same purpose as many historical "meditation pushes". However harmony with the world is not always "the point" of meditation. There are too many varied reasons one is suppoed to meditate in various religions. If you think Thervada Buddhistic reasons are the only valid reasons to meditate (they are the ones that meditate for personal enlightenmient) then according to that doctrine (*snicker*), you are correct, but you mistaken if you think that is the only purpose for meditation that most people in most of the times in the past have meditated for.
And I would say that there are many practicing Christians who reject all dogma. A very "love God, and do what thou wilst" sort of approach. And there are things that Jesus says in the Bible that many people have taken to be a renunciation of Jewish belief in doctrine, i.e. ignore all this written work, and love God. However all the church's of Christianity, just like all the sect's of Buddhism, all rest on doctrine to be able to survive as an institution.
If you're "looking" to avoid doctine, the Zen (eastern historical zen, not frou-frou western Zen) sects eschesw doctrine as unimportant to enlightenment. But they still have doctrine.
I apologize for these poor quality links, but I learnt of these things via books and people. These links cover some of the non-buddhistic meditative practices, along with timelines of the religions' beginnings: Jain: http://www.terapanth.com/tulsee/jain_tradition.htm Formation of Indian Religious Traditions: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.ht ml#The%20Formation%20of%20Religious%20Traditions
I think you've been missing most of the doctrine/dogma of the buddhist sects. There are TONS of the same sorts of donctrines you're ragging on in Christianity.
Actually for many things at the Jet level of filght, there are things human perceptions are no where as near adept at as plane perceptions. Human reflexes, same deal.
Jets are one of the area's I don't want an idiot pilot to have the option to do something dumb. And I have known commercial airline pilots who show amazing cases of Hubris in other endeavors, so I will just have to figure it carries onto their job as well. There are some facilities they should be able to override, but others, they should be at the mercy of the software, because really, its better than they can be.
Re:This is silly. (Score:1)
by phliar (87116) on Friday July 18, @03:18PM (#6473236)
If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded.
Because banning the use is cheap
Why are we putting the dangerous devices in the cargo bay? That's cheap too! And safe. And what I've been saying all along.
Ahhh, I see (says the blind man). I agree with the detector. Your right. Unfortunately, the terrorist type will always find a way. If the plane is shielded against consumer electronics, he could rig up a kW level (burst) RF generator in his luggage. (hopefully no one will try this)
I'm actually seeing designing the "threat" simulated by the emission-detection equipment as something more complex/powerful than consumer electronics. I believe its sloppyness that makes consumer electronics screw up the plane. I'm more interested in giving the system's a fighting chance against malicious attack.
And the luggage should be in a big faraday cage. There is no reason RF needs to enter or be emitted from ANYONE's luggage
If we cut out all the airport screening ticket rates would go down too. But I hope you're not advocating that.
And yes, I have developed item's that go on aircraft before, however they are military applications, where you say "How do I do this safely" before you then find the money to pay for it.
And I'm not talking about adding much. We're talking screens over the windows. That's not a lot of weight. If embedded in the windows, it may actually make them lighter (as they don't have to be as sturdy to prevent blowout).
I'm not saying 100K per plane. Its 100K per set of emission/detection equipment that you use in the hangar to test the plane. Like a really expensive tire pressure meter.
I'm saying a plane should not be let off the ground as a safty issue if it can't take the RF. Its a "I'm a terrorist and want to bring down the plane" sort of issue. I don't care about the guy who wants to use his laptop, but must be a nice boy and leave it off. I don't want the guy in the back to be able to fry/jam something up front maliciously and intentionally. He's not going to be a nice boy and leave his laptop off. He's going to turn it on quickly then the jet is going to go bonko.
And yup. This could be expensive if the plane's aren't up to snuff on this issue. but a new bulkhead and window replacements would probably stop 95% of all possible emissions from a cabin.
An alternative is FAA regs that DON'T ALLOW ELECTRONICS on the non-hardend planes. That way, malicious users can't jam their susceptable avionics, and the companies have a economic incentive to increase safty. And that would also get all the cell-dickheads onto expensive flights on carriers I wouldn't use:)
This is really silly. We should be testing the avionics of planes to see if they can take RF of the differing frequencies that could bother it. If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at.
"That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded. In a day an age where you're in deep crap if you forget to take your pocket knife off a keychain, its quite possible to bring a laptop on a plane that can fake signals and jam avionics. Either ban laptops (yeah freaking right) as carry ons, or HARDEN THE FREAKING PLANE LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAYS.
If you're worried about RF leakage out the windows, put a metal screen over them. Come on folks. We KNOW how to shield things properly, and we know how to test if we did it properly. The test equipment doesn't cost that much (100K, which is nothing for an airline).
On another rant, why don't cell base stations detect the case where the idiot is obviously up the the air? That's a problem that should be easily solvable via electronics, and not by regulation.
A smart card is a device that you can store things one that you'd like to keep private. They can even run crypto on them, to make things rather secure.
I've used them before, and would happily purchase them from a "piracy" site if it was cheapest.
I will keep this in mind when encoding in the future for someone with a hard-drive. He's a college student, and now has about 1 gig left on his drive, and can't afford more. But I didn't think of MP3 obscelesence (sp?),
He can use MP3s many more places. And they are almost 200 Kbps (is 192 the standard number, I don't remember), like in his car. I put "audiophile" in quotes for a reason, because I can hear the differences in encoding bitrate better than he can.
And I didn't really think they we're super high fidelity reproductions of what the music sounds like. They are super high fidelity of what the record sounds like. That's a completely different thing, even for a good record. Listen to a CD and a record that come off the same master once and you will recognize "record noise" as just that from that day forward. It has a similar feel to, in my mind, as low bitrate "radio" sounding broadcasts.
And most purists like the sound of noise and distortion in their music. But then again, most of them are commie hippy's anyways;).
The frequency response of a needle on a player might be higher than the depth of the CD digitization, but I don't think that's the case most of the time, especially after about the third hour of listening on a needle.
"hey, I bought the VHS version of a movie, so I'm entitled to the DVD version now!"
You CAN make a LEGAL DVD copy of your VHS for your own use. I plan on doing this to all my VHS tapes when the price goes down a bit on DVD recorders.
This is entirely different from making a copy of your friend's DVD of "Where Brother Art Thou" because you own the VHS version. They are NOT the same content, even the movie itself is often higher quality.
I showed an "audiophile" associate of mine that he could make high bitrate MP3's of his records that still sounded like a record when played back (that "vinyl" sound is actually distortion, not some beautiful lossless analog magic most record freaks claim). He then spent WEEKS converting his records to MP3. That perfectly legal. If he sells them now though, he must destroy his "backups" (the mp3's).
By the way, you only have to buy a high quality needle etc once when you want to rip your vinyl, then you'll always hear that high quality from that point on.
Oh, and you didn't buy a license. You bought a copy. See "Doctrine of First Sale" in google, or read that other good reply to your own post.
The first time I encountered a stun gun, I pressed it to my arm & tried it out. I knew I wouldn't damage myself, but now I've got a better idea of exactly what it does and how powerful it is. I don't think it was stupid. It hurt. Big deal. I knew it would, and I also knew it shouldn't do any lasting harm.
THANK GOD there is another human being who says this. My Gf and friends don't get this philosophy at all.
Is make a system that does part of what the client might think is hard but isn't, or use an old product that could be adapted to what they'd want. We then negotiate what specs they want, and figure out what's required to move our codebase to the specifications they desire.
"and the fact that the last world champion was a 100% cyber-player tends to support that."
Bzzzzt. He said paying attention to his opponents betting amounts/patterns was important. This is a very individualized sort of thing. I can often count the number of hands my opponent might be holding on one hand from the way he's betting, especially the better players.
Depends on the game. I've been in games screwed down so tight that you could make a bundle stealing the ante's or blinds, and playing the moderately well too.
Then again, I usually stole on a semi-bluff (like a Ace-Blank or a low pair).
Against good players, bluff work occasionally. Against bad players, not that often.
You be surprised how much information you get. You really understand betting patterns if you come from an online game. Some people run databases of their opponents (you can request a history of your hands played), and can read their hand quite adeptly with the aid of these records.
How expensive are austrailian wines in austrialia? In the US, they are as cheap as domestic wines, and I'm curious if that was an exchange rate thing or what.
other than photons...these and the photons do exert a pressure that has been measured. I don't think the skeptics conclusion that "C's______ heat transfer equations are valid because this clearly is a heat engine" is a valid conclusion. Then his entire paper falls apart if that's the case.
By putting it up on the web without a password, they are PUBLISHING the information.
This means all things you can do to a store cirular's data, you can do to web site published information
Slashdot Mirror
Anything but the neck snap is rather cruel (supposedly). And the decapitation is just icky. The second is reason enough for me, but the first is against the word of the constitution.
Hangings aren't simple. They can turn into decapitations if the drop is too long for the wieght/neck thickness of the "participant". Decapitations are such it is believed you will see your head roll off your body (brigns whole new meaning to the guillotine). If the drop is too short, you slowly axphyiate the person. This takes longer than you think, and supposedly quite gruesome to watch.
There is a certain "sweet spot" that's pretty hard to hit, where you snap the person's neck, killing them instantly. However the procedure is far from simple. And really gruesome.
You act like Buddha developed meditation and has the patent on it. In India, meditation was practiced farther back than Buddhism in the practices of Jain (a beautiful religion if such a thing is possible) and in Hindu beliefs. I was quite shocked to learn this at the presentation of Jain/Hindu rituals to me by an ex-girlfriend. Harmonizing yourself with the world was sometimes a purpose of meditation, other times meditation is closer to a repetitive prayer to bring oneself closer to God, and other times, other things completely.
m t ml#The%20Formation%20of%20Religious%20Traditions
I count relaxation and calming the noisy mind as both harmonizing oneself with the world, so that makes the "corporate" push to be at much the same purpose as many historical "meditation pushes". However harmony with the world is not always "the point" of meditation. There are too many varied reasons one is suppoed to meditate in various religions. If you think Thervada Buddhistic reasons are the only valid reasons to meditate (they are the ones that meditate for personal enlightenmient) then according to that doctrine (*snicker*), you are correct, but you mistaken if you think that is the only purpose for meditation that most people in most of the times in the past have meditated for.
And I would say that there are many practicing Christians who reject all dogma. A very "love God, and do what thou wilst" sort of approach. And there are things that Jesus says in the Bible that many people have taken to be a renunciation of Jewish belief in doctrine, i.e. ignore all this written work, and love God. However all the church's of Christianity, just like all the sect's of Buddhism, all rest on doctrine to be able to survive as an institution.
If you're "looking" to avoid doctine, the Zen (eastern historical zen, not frou-frou western Zen) sects eschesw doctrine as unimportant to enlightenment. But they still have doctrine.
I apologize for these poor quality links, but I learnt of these things via books and people. These links cover some of the non-buddhistic meditative practices, along with timelines of the religions' beginnings:
Jain: http://www.terapanth.com/tulsee/jain_tradition.ht
Formation of Indian Religious Traditions: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.h
I think you've been missing most of the doctrine/dogma of the buddhist sects. There are TONS of the same sorts of donctrines you're ragging on in Christianity.
Actually for many things at the Jet level of filght, there are things human perceptions are no where as near adept at as plane perceptions. Human reflexes, same deal. Jets are one of the area's I don't want an idiot pilot to have the option to do something dumb. And I have known commercial airline pilots who show amazing cases of Hubris in other endeavors, so I will just have to figure it carries onto their job as well. There are some facilities they should be able to override, but others, they should be at the mercy of the software, because really, its better than they can be.
So they can jam it on their property. And there is nothing other than an EMP that's a perfect jamming situation. --Michael
I do believe they actually can jam it on their property if they so desire....but I might be wrong here. And I don't see why they want to do that.
Re:This is silly. (Score:1) by phliar (87116) on Friday July 18, @03:18PM (#6473236) If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded. Because banning the use is cheap Why are we putting the dangerous devices in the cargo bay? That's cheap too! And safe. And what I've been saying all along.
Ahhh, I see (says the blind man). I agree with the detector. Your right. Unfortunately, the terrorist type will always find a way. If the plane is shielded against consumer electronics, he could rig up a kW level (burst) RF generator in his luggage. (hopefully no one will try this)
I'm actually seeing designing the "threat" simulated by the emission-detection equipment as something more complex/powerful than consumer electronics. I believe its sloppyness that makes consumer electronics screw up the plane. I'm more interested in giving the system's a fighting chance against malicious attack.
And the luggage should be in a big faraday cage. There is no reason RF needs to enter or be emitted from ANYONE's luggage
If we cut out all the airport screening ticket rates would go down too. But I hope you're not advocating that. And yes, I have developed item's that go on aircraft before, however they are military applications, where you say "How do I do this safely" before you then find the money to pay for it. And I'm not talking about adding much. We're talking screens over the windows. That's not a lot of weight. If embedded in the windows, it may actually make them lighter (as they don't have to be as sturdy to prevent blowout).
I'm not saying 100K per plane. Its 100K per set of emission/detection equipment that you use in the hangar to test the plane. Like a really expensive tire pressure meter.
:)
I'm saying a plane should not be let off the ground as a safty issue if it can't take the RF. Its a "I'm a terrorist and want to bring down the plane" sort of issue. I don't care about the guy who wants to use his laptop, but must be a nice boy and leave it off. I don't want the guy in the back to be able to fry/jam something up front maliciously and intentionally. He's not going to be a nice boy and leave his laptop off. He's going to turn it on quickly then the jet is going to go bonko.
And yup. This could be expensive if the plane's aren't up to snuff on this issue. but a new bulkhead and window replacements would probably stop 95% of all possible emissions from a cabin.
An alternative is FAA regs that DON'T ALLOW ELECTRONICS on the non-hardend planes. That way, malicious users can't jam their susceptable avionics, and the companies have a economic incentive to increase safty. And that would also get all the cell-dickheads onto expensive flights on carriers I wouldn't use
ps: Thanks for wading my misformatted message
This is really silly. We should be testing the avionics of planes to see if they can take RF of the differing frequencies that could bother it. If it can't, the plane should be grounded until it can be hardened to handle the RF. RF hardening is a science that the military industrial complex is quite apt at. "That's expensive, why don't we BAN USE OF the devices," cry the economically minded. In a day an age where you're in deep crap if you forget to take your pocket knife off a keychain, its quite possible to bring a laptop on a plane that can fake signals and jam avionics. Either ban laptops (yeah freaking right) as carry ons, or HARDEN THE FREAKING PLANE LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAYS. If you're worried about RF leakage out the windows, put a metal screen over them. Come on folks. We KNOW how to shield things properly, and we know how to test if we did it properly. The test equipment doesn't cost that much (100K, which is nothing for an airline). On another rant, why don't cell base stations detect the case where the idiot is obviously up the the air? That's a problem that should be easily solvable via electronics, and not by regulation.
A smart card is a device that you can store things one that you'd like to keep private. They can even run crypto on them, to make things rather secure. I've used them before, and would happily purchase them from a "piracy" site if it was cheapest.
I will keep this in mind when encoding in the future for someone with a hard-drive. He's a college student, and now has about 1 gig left on his drive, and can't afford more. But I didn't think of MP3 obscelesence (sp?),
He can use MP3s many more places. And they are almost 200 Kbps (is 192 the standard number, I don't remember), like in his car. I put "audiophile" in quotes for a reason, because I can hear the differences in encoding bitrate better than he can. And I didn't really think they we're super high fidelity reproductions of what the music sounds like. They are super high fidelity of what the record sounds like. That's a completely different thing, even for a good record. Listen to a CD and a record that come off the same master once and you will recognize "record noise" as just that from that day forward. It has a similar feel to, in my mind, as low bitrate "radio" sounding broadcasts.
And most purists like the sound of noise and distortion in their music. But then again, most of them are commie hippy's anyways ;).
The frequency response of a needle on a player might be higher than the depth of the CD digitization, but I don't think that's the case most of the time, especially after about the third hour of listening on a needle.
"hey, I bought the VHS version of a movie, so I'm entitled to the DVD version now!"
You CAN make a LEGAL DVD copy of your VHS for your own use. I plan on doing this to all my VHS tapes when the price goes down a bit on DVD recorders.
This is entirely different from making a copy of your friend's DVD of "Where Brother Art Thou" because you own the VHS version. They are NOT the same content, even the movie itself is often higher quality.
I showed an "audiophile" associate of mine that he could make high bitrate MP3's of his records that still sounded like a record when played back (that "vinyl" sound is actually distortion, not some beautiful lossless analog magic most record freaks claim). He then spent WEEKS converting his records to MP3. That perfectly legal. If he sells them now though, he must destroy his "backups" (the mp3's).
By the way, you only have to buy a high quality needle etc once when you want to rip your vinyl, then you'll always hear that high quality from that point on.
Oh, and you didn't buy a license. You bought a copy. See "Doctrine of First Sale" in google, or read that other good reply to your own post.
The first time I encountered a stun gun, I pressed it to my arm & tried it out. I knew I wouldn't damage myself, but now I've got a better idea of exactly what it does and how powerful it is. I don't think it was stupid. It hurt. Big deal. I knew it would, and I also knew it shouldn't do any lasting harm. THANK GOD there is another human being who says this. My Gf and friends don't get this philosophy at all.
Is make a system that does part of what the client might think is hard but isn't, or use an old product that could be adapted to what they'd want. We then negotiate what specs they want, and figure out what's required to move our codebase to the specifications they desire.
"and the fact that the last world champion was a 100% cyber-player tends to support that."
Bzzzzt. He said paying attention to his opponents betting amounts/patterns was important. This is a very individualized sort of thing. I can often count the number of hands my opponent might be holding on one hand from the way he's betting, especially the better players.
Depends on the game. I've been in games screwed down so tight that you could make a bundle stealing the ante's or blinds, and playing the moderately well too.
Then again, I usually stole on a semi-bluff (like a Ace-Blank or a low pair).
Against good players, bluff work occasionally. Against bad players, not that often.
You be surprised how much information you get. You really understand betting patterns if you come from an online game. Some people run databases of their opponents (you can request a history of your hands played), and can read their hand quite adeptly with the aid of these records.
How expensive are austrailian wines in austrialia? In the US, they are as cheap as domestic wines, and I'm curious if that was an exchange rate thing or what.
other than photons...these and the photons do exert a pressure that has been measured. I don't think the skeptics conclusion that "C's______ heat transfer equations are valid because this clearly is a heat engine" is a valid conclusion. Then his entire paper falls apart if that's the case.
By putting it up on the web without a password, they are PUBLISHING the information. This means all things you can do to a store cirular's data, you can do to web site published information