Actually, DLP and LCoS are all immune to burn-in as well and are much, much cheaper than an $18K direct LCD.
You only have to worry about burn-in with plasma, CRT, and (supposedly) projection LCD. Direct & projection CRT is a dying technology. Projection LCD is hard to find. All you really need to do is to avoid plasma, and you'll be fine on burn-in.
But as with all projectors, the only downside is expensive bulbs, which can go poof after a couple of years of use.
Actually, Samsung and a company called NuVision are due to be shipping LED-backlit DLP sets this year. They use 3 colors of LEDs instead of a single bulb. This significantly increases the longevity of the backlight, reduces power consumption, obviates much of the need for audible cooling, and supposedly eliminates the rainbow effect.
I want one badly, but my HDTV needs are currently fulfilled, and I can't justify the cost of replacing what I've got.
I'm failing to see how any of the 4 points you brought up counter anything that I said.
I deliberately gave a "rough" definition because explaining the finer points would take way too long and distract from my point that the guy in the linked article is essentially a One True Play Style bigot and should be ignored as such.
The first sentence is exactly what I said. The latter are clarifications of a point that I didn't make.
That's exactly what I said. The site is "dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games." I never hinted that the discussions were all about theory, just that the founder wrote some essays about it.
Not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I didn't bring it up.
I know that some Forge participants spend a lot of time defending what the site is about from people new to it and its ideas, but I didn't say anything that disagrees with the "counter"-points you bring up, so don't use me as a straw man here.
They are also major signs that the person is experiencing a simple partial seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy. TLE is well associated with both mysticism and artistic talent and is not just a sign of senility.
Even people without TLE can have deja vu. About 70% of the population claims to have experienced deja vu at some point in their life.
The Forge is a website dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games. It was created by the author of the indy RPG Sorceror who wrote an essay that defined three broad different player agendas for playing a game: Simulationism, Narrativsim, and Gamism.
Roughly defined: Simulationism is about experiencing or exploring a setting, situation, character, etc. Narrativism is about story. Gamism is about defeating challenges.
Most good games contain elements of all three, but the best focus on one or two areas to deeply satisfy a kind of gamer.
All this guy is doing is what many game snobs have done time and time again before -- stating that one of these three play style is The One True Style and demanding that everyone else create games that satisfy his gaming goals. I personally enjoy the very kinds of games that he is bashing the most and find the open-ended exploration RPG to be boring and pointless. That doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made, though -- unlike him.
In other words, let's just leave this guy to his own elitist irrelevance, move on, and create games that satisfy different players.
In other words, each endpoint gets around 80 Mb/s downstream and around 40 Mb/s upstream. 2.5 Gb/s is the downstream system capacity between the optical line terminal and optical network terminal, not the service offered to an individual customer.
Oh, well only 80 Mbps. I'd still take that. I'd still just about kill for that, especially if it was affordable.
We had a new cable company come into my home city pushing fiber to the curb, and in order to get access to the rights of way they had to install in the poor neighborhoods first. Rural areas and chery picking rich neighborhoods are too different issues. If they could have gone into the rich neighborhood they would probably offer much faster services and have a much larger market share.
I was not aware that this kind of thing happened. I will retreat from my last comment.
They're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US.
I've heard this argument before, but there are places in New York and other large metropolises that are just as packed as some of less dense Asian cities and even they don't have bandwidth to compare.
By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire where it would not be profitable in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines.
I would point out that most phone companies in European countries are also monopolies. The difference is that they're government regulated and partially (or wholly) government funded monopolies. It's that lack of state intervention that makes the huge difference. On the one hand, Americans have never really had to wait long times to get phone service for decades. On the other hand, our internet growth has become a quagmire.
I think some sort of boost is needed, but I'm not sure what. Obviously, the market is providing enough incentive to innovate and expand services.
Which means "deployed to a very few affluent areas that can likely afford it", a concept which seems to go over OK in Asia and Europe, but not so OK in North America.
You obviously don't have relatives that live in a rural area. It took my parents YEARS to get DSL after it was available for the first time in our state, and it took them over 3 years to get the higher speeds that I had living in the city. They still don't have cable TV where they live and use satellite TV.
I'm sure that the concept flies just as well in Asia and Europe as it does here -- with a lot of impotent grumbling and not much done about it, except that Asian and European countries are much more willing to get their governments involved in providing utility services.
Is 15 mbps shit? I wish I had that shit. I just have 4 Mbps for 20/month.
People like me who live in a major American metropolis (home to our regional telephone monopoly!) can only get 256 Kbps/128 Kbps for $20 (with a special offer; it's normally $25)! Getting 3-6 Mbps down costs $38-47.
Cable internet (for non cable TV customers) costs $58-68 for 4-8 Mbps (or $15 less if you're willing to pay $15-50 for TV).
I would practically KILL to have 4 Mbps for $20/month. I don't know WHERE in the US you get 15 Mbps, but I'm sure that it costs nearly 4X what you're paying. (3X if that figure is 20 EUR/month.)
Compared to Comcast, where you can "save up to $100" by buying a connection that is a fraction of that for $33 along with $33 for TV and $33 for VoIP, it doesn't seem all that disingenous.
When you consider the bandwidth used by VoIP and IPTV over a 2.5 Gb/s connection, it IS practically free to provide. I would pay twice this price to get this here and more than willingly make this my largest bill. Where I live, the best that I can get is 6 Mb/s / 384 Kb/s for over $80 month.
It's disgusting! What country invented DSL? America. What country is in dead last place among the industrialized world for DSL speeds? America.
But, oh, our poor widdle local monopolies can't compete against all that howwibble competition. It just makes me mad enough to spit.
As a Buddhist, I try to be as compassionate as possible. The mlecchas have caused more human harm over a millenium than even the Socialists of the 20th Century.
Try harder. Your post has been pretty much a refutation of the very principle of compassion. You're apparently not above racial epithets much less above thinking that it's okay to torture people. Maybe you should ask those people from Tibet what they think of torture. It might be easier to understand if people you consider to be actual people told you they didn't like it.
If one way to reduce human suffering is to scare the terrorists, then I am very, very much in favor of it.
This is essentially the essence of any argument in favor of torture. If hurting people saves more people, then it's okay. That's known in philosophy as utilitarianism.
By that logic any act of horror is justifiable as long as it (a) causes suffering to less than the majority of people (or to some acceptable minority and (b) somehow benefits those that it is not inflicted upon. Consider that oppressing Tibet for the benefit of China meets this measure.
The central flaw in even a utilitarian view of torture lies in whether or not (b) is true. Does torturing people rounded up in Afghanistan prevent terrorism, or does it only drive more people to terrorism? I point you to this excellent post for a suggestion on the answer.
Or does your tossing about of epithets like 'mlecchas,' your willingness to let potentially innocent people be tarred with the same brush as terrorists because of their religion and to suffer torture, and your belief that you being forced to listen to music you don't like is the same as 'mlecchas' being tortured just simply reveal that you're a racist who doesn't consider people who aren't like you to be actual people worthy of the same rights as you?
BTW, if waterboarding is torture, and since waterboarding works, then the truism "torture produces bad intel" is proved false.
No. Waterboarding is just effective at breaking people. In no way does it ensure that they won't make up stories or just tearfully agree to anything that you say that they did just to make it all stop.
The problem with torture's utility is not that it's ineffective at getting the truth out of people who know the truth but that it's extremely effective at getting nonsense out of people who don't know what you're looking for or who know that what you're asking about isn't true but just want the pain to stop.
You can get anything out of a guy being tortured. Anything you want. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it might even be the truth.
My exposure to country music has left me with an aversion to steel guitar. I am scarred and cannot enjoy the brilliance of Robert Randolph -- I hear him, recognize the amazing talent, and then the pounding headache sets in as I am re-traumatized, all that AM, all that country music, no escape, oh I hope I am not an antenna....
You really show, once again, your complete lack of empathy as well as sense of proportion if you think that listening to country music is the same as being imprisoned without hope of release by people who hate you and mock-drowned for information you may or may not have.
All it leaves is some bad memories and perhaps a phobia.
Having your genitals shocked repeatedly only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being beaten with a rubber hose could only leave "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being raped only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia" as long as you aren't be made pregnant from it.
But, hey, what's crippling madness and heart forged in fear and hate as long as it doesn't leave a mark, right?
Good luck on your next incarnation. You'll need it.
How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice?
Specifically, opening up a witness to intimidation by relaying his personal details to the people the FBI is trying to hide him from is obstruction of justice because it might cause him not to testify.
Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.
When the goal is exposing a witness under federal protection to the very criminals they're trying to hide him from, you better be happy that people can be arrested for that.
Never mind that probably all fears are learned rather than inherited behavior (I'm not even going to start to argue about that)...
Well, I will!
Not all fears are learned like fears of animals such as snakes and fear of the number 13. Some fears are instinctual -- fear of drowning, fear of isolation, fear of the dark and the unknown. The terror of being hunted, the panic of being caught in a fire, and the wariness of meeting someone who doesn't look like the kind of people you see in your day-to-day life are natural.
Many of these fears can be overcome with learning, but they're all built into us for survival. Drowning, being surrounded by fire, and being hunted all produce fear to reinforce our survival instincts. Fear of being alone and xenophobia are pack-behavior reinforcing instincts that drive us to seek out like company and to treat strangers as rivals. Fear of the dark and the unknown are instinctual because a lack of ability to predict what's going on around you puts you in a situation to be preyed upon.
Some instincts lean more towards hate than fear, such as the tendency to discriminate against the sick and the weak, but they all stem from the same root. While I seriously doubt that people have an instinctual fear of snakes, I am certain that there are fears that are innate.
You've pretty well nailed most of our advantages -- pack hunting, endurance running, good vision, cunning, and intelligence. The only thing you're missing is that we're also pretty well evolved for throwing things. Throwing weapons is one of our evolutionary advantages over other predatory species.
Some people are known as "tetrachromats" All examples I've heard about have been the mothers of red-green colorblind men. Essentially they have an extra receptor between R & G.
Actually, it's more interesting than that. There are variant genes for the red & green cones that result in the cones absorbing a slightly different spectrum of light. The genes for this are on the X chromosome. A tetrachromat is a woman who has differing genes on her two differing X chromosomes that are somehow both active, leading to either her red cones or her green cones being split between the two variant alleles and allowing for finer detail in distinguishing shades of red or green.
Why I say it's more interesting is that this shows us that beyond the perceptual, cognitive differences between perception of color that we grow up with within our cultures, humans actually have differing physical hardware for perceiving color. We really don't see the world with the same eyes.
Apparently we may also have a 4th (or 5th, depending on pt 2) receptor in the ultraviolet range. However, most of the light in this range is blocked by the alchohol in our eye fluids, so this receptor is mostly pretty useless.
Actually, it's just that our blue cones and our rods have sensitivity in the near UV range. It's the lens of the eye that blocks UV; there's no alcohol in the vitreous humour. People who have cataract surgery that replaces their lens can sometimes see UV in a very limited fashion.
Honestly. It took me a few years and an actual trip to Japan to realize that the Japanese believe most of the stereotypes American non-fanboys have about anime, games, etc. too because they're mostly true. Anime is either made for kids or for otaku. Most "visual novels" ARE dating sim / porn games. Those that aren't are exceptions, and the industry mostly caters to the otaku and not to the mainstream.
I was not aware of that. I'll have to do a lot more research into what the article means by "full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control."
I'll just have to add that to my list of Supreme Court decisions I think were blatantly pandering to the government desires of the times instead of to the intent of the framers.
To be held legally accountable, you have to sign it. The terrorists haven't. As for us, we're not just signatories -- we helped write the Geneva Convention, and large parts of it were a reaction to how our soldiers were treated in war.
That's the legal perspective.
However, much like the Constitution, I believe that the Geneva Convention is in many ways partially an expression of moral values that demands decency and just behavior.
The terrorists may not have signed it, but they didn't sign any statements agreeing to not kidnap and behead people or to not treat women like property, but we expect them not to and don't use their behavior as justification to do the same things ourselves "in this new kind of war." Similarly, I think we can and should try to hold them to the commitments to deceny in the Geneva Convention that we ourselves agreed to be bound by.
How do you define "equitable". Israel has given 98% of what Palistine has asked.
That's a farsical assertion. Israel still wants to permanently keep some of the best land in the West Bank and to deny the Palestinians the use of East Jerusalem as a capital. They've built a wall through the West Bank that cuts off portions of the land belonging to Palestine to make a de facto land grab. The abandonment of Gaza was explicitly done around the idea of consolidating the hold over the West Bank.
Israel's version of peace and a Palestinian state leaves them with complete control over the airspace over Palestinian territory, the waters, and the borders, leaving them imprisoned. It takes away the best land and the capital that they have their hearts set on. It provides no sharing of access to the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock. They don't care to set up the travel corridors between the two segments provided for in the Oslo peace accord.
It also does nothing for the "right of return" that the Palestinians grudingly gave up in that peace accord. That isn't "98% of what they asked for" in the peace accords, much less 98% of what they actually want (and probably shouldn't get; I don't like the idea of right of return at this late of a date).
Personally, I think Israel has bent over backwards trying to live in peace with its neighbors. Meanwhile, the surrounding countries have people sworn to the destruction of all Jews.
Israeli settlers are also religious fanatics dedicated to the idea of displacing all the Arabs from the area they claim for Greater Israel. Some believe that the statements made by God in the Pentateuch and later books like Joshua and Judges are still in effect and that Israel must conquer all the lands given to them in those passages. Most Israelis are more reasonable than that, though.
So, please define "equitable" in terms that don't allow more bombs to be lobbed into a soverign state from its neighbors.
How 'bout a definition that doesn't allow either side to lob bombs into their neighbors.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, DLP and LCoS are all immune to burn-in as well and are much, much cheaper than an $18K direct LCD.
You only have to worry about burn-in with plasma, CRT, and (supposedly) projection LCD. Direct & projection CRT is a dying technology. Projection LCD is hard to find. All you really need to do is to avoid plasma, and you'll be fine on burn-in.
But as with all projectors, the only downside is expensive bulbs, which can go poof after a couple of years of use.
Actually, Samsung and a company called NuVision are due to be shipping LED-backlit DLP sets this year. They use 3 colors of LEDs instead of a single bulb. This significantly increases the longevity of the backlight, reduces power consumption, obviates much of the need for audible cooling, and supposedly eliminates the rainbow effect.
I want one badly, but my HDTV needs are currently fulfilled, and I can't justify the cost of replacing what I've got.
DSL was invented in 1988 by Bellcore.
- I deliberately gave a "rough" definition because explaining the finer points would take way too long and distract from my point that the guy in the linked article is essentially a One True Play Style bigot and should be ignored as such.
- The first sentence is exactly what I said. The latter are clarifications of a point that I didn't make.
- That's exactly what I said. The site is "dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games." I never hinted that the discussions were all about theory, just that the founder wrote some essays about it.
- Not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I didn't bring it up.
I know that some Forge participants spend a lot of time defending what the site is about from people new to it and its ideas, but I didn't say anything that disagrees with the "counter"-points you bring up, so don't use me as a straw man here.They are also major signs that the person is experiencing a simple partial seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy. TLE is well associated with both mysticism and artistic talent and is not just a sign of senility.
Even people without TLE can have deja vu. About 70% of the population claims to have experienced deja vu at some point in their life.
The Forge is a website dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games. It was created by the author of the indy RPG Sorceror who wrote an essay that defined three broad different player agendas for playing a game: Simulationism, Narrativsim, and Gamism.
Roughly defined:
Simulationism is about experiencing or exploring a setting, situation, character, etc.
Narrativism is about story.
Gamism is about defeating challenges.
Most good games contain elements of all three, but the best focus on one or two areas to deeply satisfy a kind of gamer.
All this guy is doing is what many game snobs have done time and time again before -- stating that one of these three play style is The One True Style and demanding that everyone else create games that satisfy his gaming goals. I personally enjoy the very kinds of games that he is bashing the most and find the open-ended exploration RPG to be boring and pointless. That doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made, though -- unlike him.
In other words, let's just leave this guy to his own elitist irrelevance, move on, and create games that satisfy different players.
Sheesh. Of all the words to leave out...
In other words, each endpoint gets around 80 Mb/s downstream and around 40 Mb/s upstream. 2.5 Gb/s is the downstream system capacity between the optical line terminal and optical network terminal, not the service offered to an individual customer.
Oh, well only 80 Mbps. I'd still take that. I'd still just about kill for that, especially if it was affordable.
We had a new cable company come into my home city pushing fiber to the curb, and in order to get access to the rights of way they had to install in the poor neighborhoods first. Rural areas and chery picking rich neighborhoods are too different issues. If they could have gone into the rich neighborhood they would probably offer much faster services and have a much larger market share.
I was not aware that this kind of thing happened. I will retreat from my last comment.
They're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US.
I've heard this argument before, but there are places in New York and other large metropolises that are just as packed as some of less dense Asian cities and even they don't have bandwidth to compare.
By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire where it would not be profitable in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines.
I would point out that most phone companies in European countries are also monopolies. The difference is that they're government regulated and partially (or wholly) government funded monopolies. It's that lack of state intervention that makes the huge difference. On the one hand, Americans have never really had to wait long times to get phone service for decades. On the other hand, our internet growth has become a quagmire.
I think some sort of boost is needed, but I'm not sure what. Obviously, the market is providing enough incentive to innovate and expand services.
Which means "deployed to a very few affluent areas that can likely afford it", a concept which seems to go over OK in Asia and Europe, but not so OK in North America.
You obviously don't have relatives that live in a rural area. It took my parents YEARS to get DSL after it was available for the first time in our state, and it took them over 3 years to get the higher speeds that I had living in the city. They still don't have cable TV where they live and use satellite TV.
I'm sure that the concept flies just as well in Asia and Europe as it does here -- with a lot of impotent grumbling and not much done about it, except that Asian and European countries are much more willing to get their governments involved in providing utility services.
Is 15 mbps shit? I wish I had that shit. I just have 4 Mbps for 20/month.
People like me who live in a major American metropolis (home to our regional telephone monopoly!) can only get 256 Kbps/128 Kbps for $20 (with a special offer; it's normally $25)! Getting 3-6 Mbps down costs $38-47.
Cable internet (for non cable TV customers) costs $58-68 for 4-8 Mbps (or $15 less if you're willing to pay $15-50 for TV).
I would practically KILL to have 4 Mbps for $20/month. I don't know WHERE in the US you get 15 Mbps, but I'm sure that it costs nearly 4X what you're paying. (3X if that figure is 20 EUR/month.)
Compared to Comcast, where you can "save up to $100" by buying a connection that is a fraction of that for $33 along with $33 for TV and $33 for VoIP, it doesn't seem all that disingenous.
When you consider the bandwidth used by VoIP and IPTV over a 2.5 Gb/s connection, it IS practically free to provide. I would pay twice this price to get this here and more than willingly make this my largest bill. Where I live, the best that I can get is 6 Mb/s / 384 Kb/s for over $80 month.
It's disgusting! What country invented DSL? America. What country is in dead last place among the industrialized world for DSL speeds? America.
But, oh, our poor widdle local monopolies can't compete against all that howwibble competition. It just makes me mad enough to spit.
- Credit cards are a toy.
- Credit cards are the same as cash.
- Money on credit cards represents an asset instead of a liability.
There is nothing responsible about what this game teaches kids about credit cards.If you're out for justice, demand a supervisor.
What's the guy in the next cube over in the call center going to do for you except try to make you go away?
As a Buddhist, I try to be as compassionate as possible. The mlecchas have caused more human harm over a millenium than even the Socialists of the 20th Century.
Try harder. Your post has been pretty much a refutation of the very principle of compassion. You're apparently not above racial epithets much less above thinking that it's okay to torture people. Maybe you should ask those people from Tibet what they think of torture. It might be easier to understand if people you consider to be actual people told you they didn't like it.
If one way to reduce human suffering is to scare the terrorists, then I am very, very much in favor of it.
This is essentially the essence of any argument in favor of torture. If hurting people saves more people, then it's okay. That's known in philosophy as utilitarianism.
By that logic any act of horror is justifiable as long as it (a) causes suffering to less than the majority of people (or to some acceptable minority and (b) somehow benefits those that it is not inflicted upon. Consider that oppressing Tibet for the benefit of China meets this measure.
The central flaw in even a utilitarian view of torture lies in whether or not (b) is true. Does torturing people rounded up in Afghanistan prevent terrorism, or does it only drive more people to terrorism? I point you to this excellent post for a suggestion on the answer.
Or does your tossing about of epithets like 'mlecchas,' your willingness to let potentially innocent people be tarred with the same brush as terrorists because of their religion and to suffer torture, and your belief that you being forced to listen to music you don't like is the same as 'mlecchas' being tortured just simply reveal that you're a racist who doesn't consider people who aren't like you to be actual people worthy of the same rights as you?
BTW, if waterboarding is torture, and since waterboarding works, then the truism "torture produces bad intel" is proved false.
No. Waterboarding is just effective at breaking people. In no way does it ensure that they won't make up stories or just tearfully agree to anything that you say that they did just to make it all stop.
The problem with torture's utility is not that it's ineffective at getting the truth out of people who know the truth but that it's extremely effective at getting nonsense out of people who don't know what you're looking for or who know that what you're asking about isn't true but just want the pain to stop.
You can get anything out of a guy being tortured. Anything you want. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it might even be the truth.
My exposure to country music has left me with an aversion to steel guitar. I am scarred and cannot enjoy the brilliance of Robert Randolph -- I hear him, recognize the amazing talent, and then the pounding headache sets in as I am re-traumatized, all that AM, all that country music, no escape, oh I hope I am not an antenna....
You really show, once again, your complete lack of empathy as well as sense of proportion if you think that listening to country music is the same as being imprisoned without hope of release by people who hate you and mock-drowned for information you may or may not have.
All it leaves is some bad memories and perhaps a phobia.
Having your genitals shocked repeatedly only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being beaten with a rubber hose could only leave "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia." Being raped only leaves "some bad memories and perhaps a phobia" as long as you aren't be made pregnant from it.
But, hey, what's crippling madness and heart forged in fear and hate as long as it doesn't leave a mark, right?
Good luck on your next incarnation. You'll need it.
How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice?
Specifically, opening up a witness to intimidation by relaying his personal details to the people the FBI is trying to hide him from is obstruction of justice because it might cause him not to testify.
Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.
When the goal is exposing a witness under federal protection to the very criminals they're trying to hide him from, you better be happy that people can be arrested for that.
Write-Once, Debug Everywhere.
Never mind that probably all fears are learned rather than inherited behavior (I'm not even going to start to argue about that)...
Well, I will!
Not all fears are learned like fears of animals such as snakes and fear of the number 13. Some fears are instinctual -- fear of drowning, fear of isolation, fear of the dark and the unknown. The terror of being hunted, the panic of being caught in a fire, and the wariness of meeting someone who doesn't look like the kind of people you see in your day-to-day life are natural.
Many of these fears can be overcome with learning, but they're all built into us for survival. Drowning, being surrounded by fire, and being hunted all produce fear to reinforce our survival instincts. Fear of being alone and xenophobia are pack-behavior reinforcing instincts that drive us to seek out like company and to treat strangers as rivals. Fear of the dark and the unknown are instinctual because a lack of ability to predict what's going on around you puts you in a situation to be preyed upon.
Some instincts lean more towards hate than fear, such as the tendency to discriminate against the sick and the weak, but they all stem from the same root. While I seriously doubt that people have an instinctual fear of snakes, I am certain that there are fears that are innate.
You've pretty well nailed most of our advantages -- pack hunting, endurance running, good vision, cunning, and intelligence. The only thing you're missing is that we're also pretty well evolved for throwing things. Throwing weapons is one of our evolutionary advantages over other predatory species.
Some people are known as "tetrachromats" All examples I've heard about have been the mothers of red-green colorblind men. Essentially they have an extra receptor between R & G.
Actually, it's more interesting than that. There are variant genes for the red & green cones that result in the cones absorbing a slightly different spectrum of light. The genes for this are on the X chromosome. A tetrachromat is a woman who has differing genes on her two differing X chromosomes that are somehow both active, leading to either her red cones or her green cones being split between the two variant alleles and allowing for finer detail in distinguishing shades of red or green.
Why I say it's more interesting is that this shows us that beyond the perceptual, cognitive differences between perception of color that we grow up with within our cultures, humans actually have differing physical hardware for perceiving color. We really don't see the world with the same eyes.
Apparently we may also have a 4th (or 5th, depending on pt 2) receptor in the ultraviolet range. However, most of the light in this range is blocked by the alchohol in our eye fluids, so this receptor is mostly pretty useless.
Actually, it's just that our blue cones and our rods have sensitivity in the near UV range. It's the lens of the eye that blocks UV; there's no alcohol in the vitreous humour. People who have cataract surgery that replaces their lens can sometimes see UV in a very limited fashion.
You can read more about aphakia and UV sensitivity here.
Honestly. It took me a few years and an actual trip to Japan to realize that the Japanese believe most of the stereotypes American non-fanboys have about anime, games, etc. too because they're mostly true. Anime is either made for kids or for otaku. Most "visual novels" ARE dating sim / porn games. Those that aren't are exceptions, and the industry mostly caters to the otaku and not to the mainstream.
I was not aware of that. I'll have to do a lot more research into what the article means by "full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control."
I'll just have to add that to my list of Supreme Court decisions I think were blatantly pandering to the government desires of the times instead of to the intent of the framers.
To be held legally accountable, you have to sign it. The terrorists haven't. As for us, we're not just signatories -- we helped write the Geneva Convention, and large parts of it were a reaction to how our soldiers were treated in war.
That's the legal perspective.
However, much like the Constitution, I believe that the Geneva Convention is in many ways partially an expression of moral values that demands decency and just behavior.
The terrorists may not have signed it, but they didn't sign any statements agreeing to not kidnap and behead people or to not treat women like property, but we expect them not to and don't use their behavior as justification to do the same things ourselves "in this new kind of war." Similarly, I think we can and should try to hold them to the commitments to deceny in the Geneva Convention that we ourselves agreed to be bound by.
How do you define "equitable". Israel has given 98% of what Palistine has asked.
That's a farsical assertion. Israel still wants to permanently keep some of the best land in the West Bank and to deny the Palestinians the use of East Jerusalem as a capital. They've built a wall through the West Bank that cuts off portions of the land belonging to Palestine to make a de facto land grab. The abandonment of Gaza was explicitly done around the idea of consolidating the hold over the West Bank.
Israel's version of peace and a Palestinian state leaves them with complete control over the airspace over Palestinian territory, the waters, and the borders, leaving them imprisoned. It takes away the best land and the capital that they have their hearts set on. It provides no sharing of access to the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock. They don't care to set up the travel corridors between the two segments provided for in the Oslo peace accord.
It also does nothing for the "right of return" that the Palestinians grudingly gave up in that peace accord. That isn't "98% of what they asked for" in the peace accords, much less 98% of what they actually want (and probably shouldn't get; I don't like the idea of right of return at this late of a date).
Personally, I think Israel has bent over backwards trying to live in peace with its neighbors. Meanwhile, the surrounding countries have people sworn to the destruction of all Jews.
Israeli settlers are also religious fanatics dedicated to the idea of displacing all the Arabs from the area they claim for Greater Israel. Some believe that the statements made by God in the Pentateuch and later books like Joshua and Judges are still in effect and that Israel must conquer all the lands given to them in those passages. Most Israelis are more reasonable than that, though.
So, please define "equitable" in terms that don't allow more bombs to be lobbed into a soverign state from its neighbors.
How 'bout a definition that doesn't allow either side to lob bombs into their neighbors.