That doesn't make the two statements (yours and the quoted law) synonymous. You said the distinction was down to someone going nude in order to shock and intimidate, which is not the same as simply knowing that you are likely to affront or alarm.
The last sentence should have said "public nudity is LEGAL" in Washington
I found this:
(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
which seems not to indicate that "the exception is when a person is nude for the purposes of shock or intimidation."
"knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront" seems likely to cover most cases of public nudity.
Here is one definition of a general-purpose processor: if it can run any algorithm, then it is general purpose. This is not a particularly interesting definition, because it ignores the performance aspect that has been the driving goal for most processor development.
Well, I'm sorry you don't find the definition interesting, but that doesn't mean you can redefine it however you want.
It's therefore not enough for a processor to be Turing complete in order to be classified as general purpose; it must be able to run all programs efficiently.
I assume there's a name for a logical fallacy where you redefine terms in order to make your point.
With this in mind, let's explore what people really mean when they refer to a general-purpose processor: the specific category of workloads that these devices are optimized for and what those optimizations are.
That's not what I mean when I refer to a general-purpose processor.
Efficient designs in such a world will require admitting that there is no one-size-fits-all processor design and that there is a large spectrum, with different trade-offs at different points.
Okay, affect/effect, not a huge deal other than making Slashdot look amateurish, but there's a plural "s" missing after "attacker" which makes it sound like there's just one person they're after.
Eh, my other reply was probably off the mark. Too early.
Anyway, yes, exactly like that cop. He's exactly the sort (assuming he didn't have some reason you weren't aware of for doing what he did) who can benefit from this project.
Sometimes you wonder, "Who's watching the police?" Well, now it appears everyone can
Really? Can they? How have you managed to infer that from these two articles, neither of which says any such thing?
The idea behind this system is to improve fleet management with a side benefit of creating a degree of transparency to improve public trust.
I don't see anything in either article about increasing transparency.
What they are saying is that this will allow police departments (not the public) to monitor their drivers and better promote safety among them, and that this will then, hopefully, lead to more public confidence in driving cops - and less cops dying in fatal crashes, because
crashes are the number one cause of officer fatalities.
I don't know if it's just my setup (I've got an i7 and an Nvidia card, which ought to be enough) - but it drops in and out of smooth 60fps about 25% of the time.
SpaceShipTwo's Rocket Engine Did Not Cause Fatal Crash
All they've said so far is that indications are that it was most likely not the engine that caused the crash.
Instead, data and video relayed from the ship show its hallmark safety feature — a foldable tail section designed for easy re-entry into the atmosphere from space — was deployed early, causing the in-flight break-up.
Who has said this?
We can blame the headline on TFA, since it's been copied-and-pasted, but it appears that the latter is the invention of the submitter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it's not so reasonable to equate "intent to cause" with "knowing that your actions are likely to cause."
The former implies the latter, but not the other way around.
but now I can't fin..
..d your underpants?
That doesn't make the two statements (yours and the quoted law) synonymous. You said the distinction was down to someone going nude in order to shock and intimidate, which is not the same as simply knowing that you are likely to affront or alarm.
The last sentence should have said "public nudity is LEGAL" in Washington
I found this:
(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
which seems not to indicate that "the exception is when a person is nude for the purposes of shock or intimidation."
"knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront" seems likely to cover most cases of public nudity.
Here is one definition of a general-purpose processor: if it can run any algorithm, then it is general purpose. This is not a particularly interesting definition, because it ignores the performance aspect that has been the driving goal for most processor development.
Well, I'm sorry you don't find the definition interesting, but that doesn't mean you can redefine it however you want.
It's therefore not enough for a processor to be Turing complete in order to be classified as general purpose; it must be able to run all programs efficiently.
I assume there's a name for a logical fallacy where you redefine terms in order to make your point.
With this in mind, let's explore what people really mean when they refer to a general-purpose processor: the specific category of workloads that these devices are optimized for and what those optimizations are.
That's not what I mean when I refer to a general-purpose processor.
Efficient designs in such a world will require admitting that there is no one-size-fits-all processor design and that there is a large spectrum, with different trade-offs at different points.
I didn't realise anyone was denying this.
Proof that the earth is flat is something we also had
What meaning of the word "proof" is that, then?
Okay, affect/effect, not a huge deal other than making Slashdot look amateurish, but there's a plural "s" missing after "attacker" which makes it sound like there's just one person they're after.
back v. walk or drive backwards
Also "discovered" and "be" are there, if I was being pedantic about "no verb."
You
Are
Not
Alone
The Jedi were cool and popular and mysterious. Once you got to see them in council meetings... well, takes a bit of the mystique out of it.
if you think I'm going to watch him do it to Star Wars as well, you're sorely mistaken.
That's okay then. I've never given a moment's thought to what you think.
When is Seaquest coming back?
It seems bazaar
Market up to a lack of common sense.
Michael Litos and his team were able to accelerate bunches of electrons to near the speed of light
"Near the speed of light" is not a particularly informative phrase when you're talking about particle colliders.
90%? 99%? 99.9999%?
Composed on the spot in all of five minutes.
I'd never have guessed.
I think the standard objection to that idea is that there'd have to be so many/much of them/it that we'd have seen them by now.
Eh, my other reply was probably off the mark. Too early.
Anyway, yes, exactly like that cop. He's exactly the sort (assuming he didn't have some reason you weren't aware of for doing what he did) who can benefit from this project.
You're right, your anecdote of a single event completely invalidates everything the article says. Everybody ignore the article!
Sometimes you wonder, "Who's watching the police?" Well, now it appears everyone can
Really? Can they? How have you managed to infer that from these two articles, neither of which says any such thing?
The idea behind this system is to improve fleet management with a side benefit of creating a degree of transparency to improve public trust.
I don't see anything in either article about increasing transparency.
What they are saying is that this will allow police departments (not the public) to monitor their drivers and better promote safety among them, and that this will then, hopefully, lead to more public confidence in driving cops - and less cops dying in fatal crashes, because
crashes are the number one cause of officer fatalities.
Here's a proper test video for anyone who wants one - just a white box moving smoothly around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't know if it's just my setup (I've got an i7 and an Nvidia card, which ought to be enough) - but it drops in and out of smooth 60fps about 25% of the time.
Watch news or sports. That's 60fps.
This comment seems to answer your question.
I guess I should always trust my physics and chemistry classes over reporters.
Frankly it's a wonder you've stayed sane this long if you've only just realised this.
That's assuming you have stayed sane, of course.
To continue my rant, the article even includes this quote:
“I’m not stating that this is the cause of the mishap,” [Hart] added.
No-one knows why SS2 crashed yet.
SpaceShipTwo's Rocket Engine Did Not Cause Fatal Crash
All they've said so far is that indications are that it was most likely not the engine that caused the crash.
Instead, data and video relayed from the ship show its hallmark safety feature — a foldable tail section designed for easy re-entry into the atmosphere from space — was deployed early, causing the in-flight break-up.
Who has said this?
We can blame the headline on TFA, since it's been copied-and-pasted, but it appears that the latter is the invention of the submitter.
So, is someone making shit up, or what?