If you actually get hit by a tornado there's no amount of preparation that will keep the roof on, nor any type of window that would keep debris out, open or closed. Homes nearby but not actually in the tornado will suffer damage, but generally not the loss of their entire roof.
But tornado insurance in general is pretty cheap, and commonly included the in the standard "wind damage" section of a homeowner's policy without any particular exceptions. Tornados are very localized events -- there's very little risk by the carrier of having to pay out thousands of claims from a single event -- so it's not a terribly expensive coverage for them to offer.
Generally you try to estimate the total area covered by crowds, and then estimate the density of the crowd. It's very much a guess, but it can be fairly accurate if you come up with decent density numbers.
Chuck is on NBC. BSG is on SciFi. You can't compare the numbers absolutely.
A 1.5-2.5 share is really good for cable. The best-rated cable networks rarely break a 4.0; SciFi is a niche network, and 2 million viewer is quite good for them.
A) Because it keeps me alive to fight another day B) Because it *doesn't* legitimize their actions. It might make them feel better about their actions, and maybe makes those actions easier to spin, but if what they were doing is wrong the fact that I gave my "permission", particularly under coercion, doesn't make it legitimate.
You just linked children and the unspeakable act in a sentence. I can only presume that means you're a pedophile. Please report to your local flogging and branding station immediately.
What you don't realize is that there's no reason for the administrator to be looking at the photos in the first place. Did he reasonably believe that there was data in the phone that represented an eminent threat to the school or its students? Even after searching no such data was found; what could possibly be the justification for the search in the first place?
I realize that students at schools have no rights, and that administrators *can* search their phones for essentially any reason. But power in general, and particularly such far-reaching powers, should only be used as necessary, not capriciously. We grant special power to schools because it is sometimes necessary to keep children safe at an institution they are required by law to attend; the search of the phone did not work toward that end, and thus should not have been done.
The activity was clearly wrong? Expulsion is justified? You must be trolling.
What part of the girls act is clearly wrong? Being naked? Taking a picture of yourself? Having boyfriends? Wanting to share their nakedness with their boyfriends? What they did is certainly illegal under the existing statues, but I'm having trouble understanding what makes it "clearly wrong." If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.
I've actually had a "science" teacher and the school and district administration *admit* that I correctly answered a question on a quiz, and still maintain the teacher's "prerogative" to mark it incorrect. That's not just just stupid, it's 14th-amendment-violating stupid.
I didn't even want the point, I just wanted to correct the misinformation being spread by the "science" teacher. Teaching things as "science" that are verifiably false is just not good for society.
Except they'll be charged as adults. We do it all the time -- deny children the rights of adults, but hold them to the same responsibilities and punishments.
It's just particularly ironic in this case because, if they were adults at the time of the act, the act wouldn't be a crime.
Are you seriously suggesting that we need laws to protect children from everything they might do as children that will still be around when they are adults?
What if they write some really essay that they like and the time and share with their friends, but later find extremely embarrassing -- maybe it reflects some legal but socially unacceptable viewpoints (i.e. racism, etc.). What if a potential employer gets a copy of that essay and denies them a job?
Or maybe pictures are somehow unique in their ability to translate past regrets through time. What then do we do about pictures of say, a 17-year-old drinking a beer. Wouldn't pictures of that act be potentially detrimental in the future?
The whole line of reasoning is absurd. People, including children, do things that they may later regret, and which may have adverse consequences in the future. We can't stop that. In fact, I suspect that process is probably necessary to form well-adjusted adults. As parents, it's probably a good idea to help your children avoid devastating mistakes, but sometimes it can't be avoided except through absurdly draconian and ultimately self-defeating measures.
I also think you overestimate the potential harm from these photographs. First, it has not yet been established that the individuals in question can even be identified from the photographs. Second, there's already a lot of free, legal porn on the Internet -- it would be pretty easy for these pictures to get lost in the crowd, and somewhat unlikely for any to find the images and associate them with the girls later in life (and even less likely that they'd admit it). Finally, there are only a small number of situations where "nude images of me when I was young" is going to be anything other than an embarrassment, unlike the criminal record created by convicting these girls of a crime, which will create a significant barrier in many aspects of their lives.
You don't need to pay $99 to run your own app. You only need to pay to run the app on non-pre-identified phones.
I personally think you should be able to run any app for free on any phone without paying Apple anything. But let's not pretend that people developing for personal use must pay $99.
/ Or pretend that development for equivalent platforms -- like Windows Mobile -- doesn't require you to purchase $600+ in software from the platform vendor.
I would honestly be *very* interested in any way to develop Windows Mobile 6.x app without buying MS Windows and MS Visual Studio. Those programs are $300 *each*, and I'm not willing to spend $600+ to develop a couple of personal-use programs.
I would, however, be willing to paying $50 to someone who can tell me how to reliable compile Windows Mobile 6.x - ARM programs using OS X (Intel and/or PPC) native programs. Email in profile.
Did I miss the part where MS Windows and/or MS Visual Studio became free? Because I own a machine that can run both, and a phone that runs Windows Mobile 6.x; if someone can tell me how to develop for that platform without spending $600+ I'd be eternally grateful.
Even if you assume the developer already has free access to MS Windows, MS Visual Studio is not cheap by any standard for personal software development.
If you use a reasonable encryption method, someone without the key cannot recover your data in any reasonable amount of time, unless you assume access to some yet-publicly-unknown method of cryptanalysis, or some flaw in the crypto system. It's not just a theoretical possibility — it's not even a theoretical possibility. That assumption is the basis of cryptography.
The alternative is that all encryption is useless against a determined attacker, and therefore it's not ever reasonably safe to transmit anything valuable across an insecure channel like the Internet. If that really were the case, why isn't someone sniffing all the data on those PFS-disabled IPSec channels in use by thousands of companies with fairly valuable data? With PFS disabled there's only one key to crack and you can read all the data that ever went or will go over the channel.
It sounds better I agree. But so does spending the next 4 years with my left leg in a cast.
I'm not saying Obama will be terrible, but it's not really a challenge to be better than Bush, so if that's your only hope for the next decade I'd suggest you consider raising the bar.
If the word "marriage" isn't important then why do you care if gays use it?
If the word "marriage" is important then how can you argue that it isn't important to allow gays to use it? Did you miss the outcome of that whole "separate but equal" bit last time around, when we tried to claim that it was okay to deny a group of citizens access to certain government services, so long as we provided them a different set of equivalent services, and the judicial system overwhelming decided that wasn't acceptable?
That's not true. If I work X hours per year and pay a 20% income tax, but working X+1 hours a year would result in a 40% income tax, it would make less post-tax money working X+1 hours instead of X hours.
Now there's some X+Y where Y>1 makes your total post-tax income exceed your income at hours=X, but it could be a long way off.
I don't know about their data plans, but voice actually isn't terrible. It's like $25/month + $1/min - $1.50/min depending on what size chunk you buy minutes. I mean, it's not cheap, but it's not absurd either.
Which is essentially indifferent, other than MOV is not limited to H.264/AAC.
I mean, there are some differences between the two containers, but if you've written a parser for MP4 you've already written 97% of a parser for MOV.
To be pedantic, that is supposed to be an upgrade disc.
Not really. Apple might assume that you already bought a Mac that came with some pervious version of the OS, but the license doesn't restrict you to such uses. If you bought a Mac second-hand but not the OS license that came with it you could still use the $129 version of OS X to obtain a valid OS.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually get hit by a tornado there's no amount of preparation that will keep the roof on, nor any type of window that would keep debris out, open or closed. Homes nearby but not actually in the tornado will suffer damage, but generally not the loss of their entire roof.
But tornado insurance in general is pretty cheap, and commonly included the in the standard "wind damage" section of a homeowner's policy without any particular exceptions. Tornados are very localized events -- there's very little risk by the carrier of having to pay out thousands of claims from a single event -- so it's not a terribly expensive coverage for them to offer.
I suppose I could have mentioned, both the area and density estimates typically come from aerial photographs.
Generally you try to estimate the total area covered by crowds, and then estimate the density of the crowd. It's very much a guess, but it can be fairly accurate if you come up with decent density numbers.
Chuck is on NBC. BSG is on SciFi. You can't compare the numbers absolutely.
A 1.5-2.5 share is really good for cable. The best-rated cable networks rarely break a 4.0; SciFi is a niche network, and 2 million viewer is quite good for them.
A) Because it keeps me alive to fight another day
B) Because it *doesn't* legitimize their actions. It might make them feel better about their actions, and maybe makes those actions easier to spin, but if what they were doing is wrong the fact that I gave my "permission", particularly under coercion, doesn't make it legitimate.
You just linked children and the unspeakable act in a sentence. I can only presume that means you're a pedophile. Please report to your local flogging and branding station immediately.
What you don't realize is that there's no reason for the administrator to be looking at the photos in the first place. Did he reasonably believe that there was data in the phone that represented an eminent threat to the school or its students? Even after searching no such data was found; what could possibly be the justification for the search in the first place?
I realize that students at schools have no rights, and that administrators *can* search their phones for essentially any reason. But power in general, and particularly such far-reaching powers, should only be used as necessary, not capriciously. We grant special power to schools because it is sometimes necessary to keep children safe at an institution they are required by law to attend; the search of the phone did not work toward that end, and thus should not have been done.
The activity was clearly wrong? Expulsion is justified? You must be trolling.
What part of the girls act is clearly wrong? Being naked? Taking a picture of yourself? Having boyfriends? Wanting to share their nakedness with their boyfriends? What they did is certainly illegal under the existing statues, but I'm having trouble understanding what makes it "clearly wrong." If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.
I've actually had a "science" teacher and the school and district administration *admit* that I correctly answered a question on a quiz, and still maintain the teacher's "prerogative" to mark it incorrect. That's not just just stupid, it's 14th-amendment-violating stupid.
I didn't even want the point, I just wanted to correct the misinformation being spread by the "science" teacher. Teaching things as "science" that are verifiably false is just not good for society.
Except they'll be charged as adults. We do it all the time -- deny children the rights of adults, but hold them to the same responsibilities and punishments.
It's just particularly ironic in this case because, if they were adults at the time of the act, the act wouldn't be a crime.
Are you seriously suggesting that we need laws to protect children from everything they might do as children that will still be around when they are adults?
What if they write some really essay that they like and the time and share with their friends, but later find extremely embarrassing -- maybe it reflects some legal but socially unacceptable viewpoints (i.e. racism, etc.). What if a potential employer gets a copy of that essay and denies them a job?
Or maybe pictures are somehow unique in their ability to translate past regrets through time. What then do we do about pictures of say, a 17-year-old drinking a beer. Wouldn't pictures of that act be potentially detrimental in the future?
The whole line of reasoning is absurd. People, including children, do things that they may later regret, and which may have adverse consequences in the future. We can't stop that. In fact, I suspect that process is probably necessary to form well-adjusted adults. As parents, it's probably a good idea to help your children avoid devastating mistakes, but sometimes it can't be avoided except through absurdly draconian and ultimately self-defeating measures.
I also think you overestimate the potential harm from these photographs. First, it has not yet been established that the individuals in question can even be identified from the photographs. Second, there's already a lot of free, legal porn on the Internet -- it would be pretty easy for these pictures to get lost in the crowd, and somewhat unlikely for any to find the images and associate them with the girls later in life (and even less likely that they'd admit it). Finally, there are only a small number of situations where "nude images of me when I was young" is going to be anything other than an embarrassment, unlike the criminal record created by convicting these girls of a crime, which will create a significant barrier in many aspects of their lives.
You don't need to pay $99 to run your own app. You only need to pay to run the app on non-pre-identified phones.
I personally think you should be able to run any app for free on any phone without paying Apple anything. But let's not pretend that people developing for personal use must pay $99.
/ Or pretend that development for equivalent platforms -- like Windows Mobile -- doesn't require you to purchase $600+ in software from the platform vendor.
I would honestly be *very* interested in any way to develop Windows Mobile 6.x app without buying MS Windows and MS Visual Studio. Those programs are $300 *each*, and I'm not willing to spend $600+ to develop a couple of personal-use programs.
I would, however, be willing to paying $50 to someone who can tell me how to reliable compile Windows Mobile 6.x - ARM programs using OS X (Intel and/or PPC) native programs. Email in profile.
And MS Visual Studio. Unless I missed some free compiler for Windows Mobile that doesn't require the (fairly expensive) MS development platform.
Did I miss the part where MS Windows and/or MS Visual Studio became free? Because I own a machine that can run both, and a phone that runs Windows Mobile 6.x; if someone can tell me how to develop for that platform without spending $600+ I'd be eternally grateful.
Even if you assume the developer already has free access to MS Windows, MS Visual Studio is not cheap by any standard for personal software development.
So what you're saying is that you're 1 rescue-disk boot away from having root access, right?
If you use a reasonable encryption method, someone without the key cannot recover your data in any reasonable amount of time, unless you assume access to some yet-publicly-unknown method of cryptanalysis, or some flaw in the crypto system. It's not just a theoretical possibility — it's not even a theoretical possibility. That assumption is the basis of cryptography.
The alternative is that all encryption is useless against a determined attacker, and therefore it's not ever reasonably safe to transmit anything valuable across an insecure channel like the Internet. If that really were the case, why isn't someone sniffing all the data on those PFS-disabled IPSec channels in use by thousands of companies with fairly valuable data? With PFS disabled there's only one key to crack and you can read all the data that ever went or will go over the channel.
It sounds better I agree. But so does spending the next 4 years with my left leg in a cast.
I'm not saying Obama will be terrible, but it's not really a challenge to be better than Bush, so if that's your only hope for the next decade I'd suggest you consider raising the bar.
If the word "marriage" isn't important then why do you care if gays use it?
If the word "marriage" is important then how can you argue that it isn't important to allow gays to use it? Did you miss the outcome of that whole "separate but equal" bit last time around, when we tried to claim that it was okay to deny a group of citizens access to certain government services, so long as we provided them a different set of equivalent services, and the judicial system overwhelming decided that wasn't acceptable?
That's not true. If I work X hours per year and pay a 20% income tax, but working X+1 hours a year would result in a 40% income tax, it would make less post-tax money working X+1 hours instead of X hours.
Now there's some X+Y where Y>1 makes your total post-tax income exceed your income at hours=X, but it could be a long way off.
I don't know about their data plans, but voice actually isn't terrible. It's like $25/month + $1/min - $1.50/min depending on what size chunk you buy minutes. I mean, it's not cheap, but it's not absurd either.
Which is essentially indifferent, other than MOV is not limited to H.264/AAC. I mean, there are some differences between the two containers, but if you've written a parser for MP4 you've already written 97% of a parser for MOV.
To be pedantic, that is supposed to be an upgrade disc.
Not really. Apple might assume that you already bought a Mac that came with some pervious version of the OS, but the license doesn't restrict you to such uses. If you bought a Mac second-hand but not the OS license that came with it you could still use the $129 version of OS X to obtain a valid OS.
Congratulations. You've just (re)discovered the luminiferous aether.
Long distance phone service is almost exclusively fiber optic. There is no reason it would be down.