Unfortunately, the Flash files I used weren't created by me, so I couldn't publish screenshots for comparison for copyright reasons. As for code snippets, they tend to turn off more people than they pull in. In either case, though, what you'd see wouldn't be terribly enlightening. A screenshot from Firefox or IE would reveal... a big white square. A screenshot from Chrome would look a lot like the original Flash movie; what you wouldn't see is that the animations and controls aren't working right.
As for code samples, what JavaScript is generated doesn't do much more than handle rollover states and give you a starting point from where you can write the JavaScript interactivity yourself. The generated jQuery function looks like this: $(document).ready(function() {
$('.wlby_sprite').each(function()
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationIteration', function(evt) { wlby_loop_children(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) });
$('.wlby_sprite,.wlby_graphic').each(function()
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationStart', function(evt) { wlby_activate_children(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) });
$('.wlby_fs').each(function()
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationEnd', function(evt) { wlby_activate_sibling(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) }); });
And that's it. The generated HTML looks something like this: <!DOCTYPE html> <!-- Created with Adobe(R) technology --> <html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8"></meta>
<link href="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"></link>
<script type="text/javascript" src="jquery-1.4.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<div class="wlby_movie">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_0.svg" class="wlby_1"/>
<div class="wlby_2 eat_mc">
<!-- Start of symbol: eat_mc -->
<div class="wlby_button">
<div class="wlby_button_normal">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_1.svg" class="wlby_3"></img>
</div>
<div class="wlby_button_hover wlby_button_active">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_2.svg" class="wlby_3"></img>
</div>
</div>
<!-- End of symbol: eat_mc -->
</div> ... and so on. This just repeats for every symbol in the Flash movie, for about 1,700 lines. (I would post more, but the/. comment filter is telling me there's too much whitespace and repitition.) As I mention in the article, there is no text in the generated HTML; all the text is
You might try to look at the number on the front door for that.
Ah, but then you've gone outside, and you've fallen into their trap!
Seriously, though, when I said "for general navigation," I mean the kind of thing where I want to find the nearest Pizza Hut, Point A to Point B. But for other kinds of geolocation applications, you might want a finer-grained result. The military and law enforcement applications are obvious (can't exactly check the number on the front door once you're chasing somebody through a building). But there are commercial applications, too. Suppose you're in a mall, and you want to know how to get from where you are now to the Old Navy store. A forward-thinking mall might provide an app for that. But if your location data is only accurate to within 1,000m and it doesn't include elevation, that application won't work -- at least, not any better than looking at the big plastic map in the courtyard. (Mind you, my phone gets pretty crappy GPS reception most of the time, but when it's working well it can pinpoint me to within 4m.)
Oh, and if it's links you want, here are some facts on that for you. From the article, which represents the best data gathered by the CDC and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:
Each year, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes. Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate partner related physical assaults. IPV resulted in 2,340 deaths in 2007. Of these deaths, 70% were females and 30% were males.
In other words, men are about half as much at risk of being assaulted by their intimate partners as women. (Note, however, that this figure also includes men whose parters are themselves men.) What's more, in cases where intimate partner violence is actually life-threatening -- as opposed to your slap in the face example -- the victim is far more likely to be female.
NCVS found that about 85 percent of victimizations by intimate partners in 1998 were against women... The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence... A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men.
Emphasis in the original. And frankly, I'm going to go with legitimate studies from justice sources before I trust your theory about who prefers their partners to be a certain age -- a theory, I might add, that strikes me as coming from someone of limited life experience.
Your conception of security as being specifically about protecting women, not men
Obviously security is supposed to protect men, but that wasn't the point of the discussion. You asked whether I've ever seen a man physically assault a woman "even once," and the answer is yes, I have seen it many times. And your question is asinine, anyway. Whether or not I've seen a man assault a woman proves nothing, because all the data shows that most women are assaulted by their partners, family members, or other people who are known to them, and it usually happens behind closed doors. I'm talking about widely recognized facts, now, not your own opinion. I do recognize that men are often assaulted by women, and that it probably happens more than anybody realizes, but your claim that it happens more often to men than it does to women is not only unfounded, but at best terribly naïve and at worst, self-serving and misogynistic.
Also, I think navigation via cellular triangulation only works to pinpoint you on a 2-D map. It tells you nothing about elevation. A quality GPS receiver could tell you which floor of a building you're on, for example.
What would be interesting is if we could get navigation via CPS, Cell Positioning System. Everyone one of those cell tower out there puts out radio waves. Why not a receiver that can triangulate on multiple towers to determine a position, ADF on steroids.
Google Maps has used this method of geolocation for phones that lack GPS for a long time now. The problem is that it's not terribly accurate. It's usually sufficient to narrow you down to within a block or so, but not much better than that. It might work for general navigation, but it's not good enough to correctly identify the address of the building you're in, for example.
A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped.
I seldom follow recipes so slavishly. If it calls for a cup of broccoli, I don't get out the measuring cup. I just eyeball it. The point is not to nail the directions just right, the point is to have the meal look and taste good, so I'll throw in as much broccoli and chop it as finely as suits my taste, based on the recommended amount. After all, maybe I just like broccoli more than the author does? And too little broccoli is seldom going to impact the flavor of a whole dish very much, unless you're pureeing it into a soup or something (in which case the recipe might call for a certain volume of puree).
With certain spices, of course, a small change can impact the flavor of the recipe a lot. But even then, measuring out a quarter of a gram of turmeric is far too cumbersome for me; I use measuring spoons, and sometimes I've been known to use "heaping" spoons, if I understand the particular spice.
The really crappy thing was that, when I was in school, I wasn't a U.S. citizen, but I was supposed to say the pledge along with all the other kids anyway. As I grew toward high school age, this bothered me for a number of reasons:
It didn't seem right to me that I should swear an oath of fealty to the U.S. when my actual allegiance was to another country. Swearing an oath to the United States wouldn't keep me from having to serve compulsory military service back home, for example (though that was unlikely to occur, as there wasn't any).
As a minor, I wasn't legally entitled to swear to anything. I couldn't rent an apartment without my parents' signature, for example, or get a job. And yet I was supposed to "pledge" allegiance to the nation -- to what end? It just seemed like brainwashing to recite those lines mindlessly.
As a non-citizen, I could swear my loyalty to the United States a thousand times and it wouldn't give me the right to vote, or participate in government, or have my needs represented in any way. I couldn't even necessarily expect to have my day in court if I was accused of certain crimes -- they'd just deport me. I was being asked to swear an oath to a country that didn't feel like it owed a damn thing to me in return, except the right to pay taxes.
On another level, as a citizen of three countries today, I just don't believe in the kind of flag-waving patriotism that has people swearing loyalty oaths -- especially when their only real connection to a given geographic region is an accident of birth. I had to jump through a whole lot of hoops to become a U.S. citizen. I'm proud that I am one, but I swore a real loyalty oath when I was naturalized; I don't feel a need to ever say one again, to anyone. My loyalty is on file with the Department of Homeland Security -- fat lot of good it will ever do me.
Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between them trivially.
OK, but does your scale suggest that you chop finely or chop roughly? And how does it help you find the right grain for either chop?
Have you ever seen a man attack a women physically even once?
Uhhhh... OK, wow. Just plain wow. You talk about "what rock you must have been living under" and you ask a question like this? My advice to you is to work security at a bar for one week. Be the guy whose job is to prevent men from physically assaulting women -- like I have done -- and then come back and talk.
As for the second article you cite, let me just quote the first sentence: "Very little in known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by women." You may have heard the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data"? Yeah, well, the admission of having no data is not data, either.
As for men wanting young women and women preferring same age partners, I don't know what rock you must have been living under to not know that, but here's some data:
From the very story you cite: "Except in their early to mid-twenties, when they apparently want nothing to do with younger guys (i.e. guys who are still in school?), women show an admirable openness to both reasonably younger and reasonably older men." In other words, relationships happen between all sorts of people -- mostly, though, between the kind of people who don't let their own prejudices get in the way of meeting people. You dig? Cuz honestly, pal, if you actually have any interest in getting laid at all, you really need to work on your hangups. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences and have maybe suffered some abuse yourself -- I'm sorry about that, but you really shouldn't use that as a guide for the rest of the way the world works, because your worldview just does not jibe with any world that I've lived in.
People don't want "realistic graphics" here. They want better-than-real-life graphics. They want women that look like hollywood airbrushed starlets, not reality.
I was thinking of a different problem. I can think of a number of Hollywood starlets that I wouldn't want anything to do with in real life -- and I'm talking strictly about appearance, now. If you make a videogame where one of the activities is for the player to have sex with women, the first time a woman shows up onscreen whom he doesn't find attractive, the game play grinds to a halt (pardon the pun) . The whole point of any game is to work toward goals; suddenly, there is no goal.
If you are honest you'll realize that woman-on-man violence is much more common than the other way around. One main effect that is actually real is that almost all men desire young women physically while women want same-age partners.
Wow, that's a whoooollle lotta generalization to support your own assumptions. I assume you've called a few rape crisis centers and family counseling practices to get the statistics to back it all up?
Well, that's true, of course, I spoke too broadly. This thread was about SMS (phones) and that was what I was addressing.
My Android phone doesn't require a Google account. It does require a Motorola account, but adding your Google account info comes after the fact. You definitely don't need a Google account to do SMS, which is completely controlled by the carrier.
The OpenSource folks, of which slashdot has a majority, seem to think that all patents are evil.
I think you're misstating the issue. Some/.ers may think all patents are evil. A great many more/.ers think that a patent regime that allows software patents is misguided, because such patents are easily abused. The fact that many large software vendors own patents purely for defensive purposes only proves that, as of 2011, it takes a lot of money even to enter the software industry, let alone to thrive.
Once again, a story about a lawsuit posted to/. with a particular spin but very light on facts. According to one of the linked articles:
[Judge] Wallace also said the defendant AVELA Inc, which licensed Betty Boop dolls, T-shirts and handbags under a copyright based on vintage posters, did not infringe any trademark, having not held out its products as "official" or misled customers.
So according to one article Avela licensed the images, according to another they were public domain. According to one, the images are OK because they're not claimed to be "official," according to the other the images are OK because Betty Boop is public domain. What's the real story? Is it about public domain? Is it about the relationship between copyright and trademark? I have no idea. Neither the reporters or the submitter bothered to explain, or apparently, even to find out.
My second guess is that some people are on benefits, but they are actually working illegally or on vacation so they don't actually want any interviews or the job. It is a requirement that you be an active job applicant, so they send off a ton of generic, crappy applications for jobs they're woefully underqualified and thus have proof they've been applying for work.
That's a requirement for unemployment benefits here in California also, but enforcement is so poor that I don't know anybody who actually does it. You're not required to document your entire search; at random, they send out some percentage of benefit forms with a box checked on front that says "fill out the reverse side." On the back is a little form where you say when and where you applied, to whom you spoke, etc. But generally speaking, for professional jobs it's enough to say "I sent my CV via email" and "I never heard back from anyone," because that's how it really works most of the time. So really, you can just make up some answers if they ever ask you.
And each place he goes to, the Tolkien Estate will be right behind him sending cease and desists.
Prove that. My kitchen is pretty far from the Internet. "Where'd you get that button" is a long way from "your manufacturing company is not permitted to produce products that trade on the Tolkien name and intellectual property."
It's a chilling effect... if you call all the other editors you know and say "This guy's so bad, I wouldn't waste time reading this manuscript, or anything else he ever sends you."
But you agree that this hasn't happened in this case, right?
I think the current situation is that HR is overwhelmed. Partly due to the current recession and associated unemployment, but mostly due to the rise of online applications.
No. It predates that.
I once applied for a job at one of the Energy Department's national labs, and was very pleased to be called in for an in-person interview. I didn't get the job, but they were very courteous and seemed pleased enough with me, and a real-life HR person even phoned me to let me know I wouldn't be getting the job, but thanking me for my time and encouraging me to keep applying if I saw positions that interested me. (When's the last time that happened?)
What they told me during the interview, though, was that posting the job on Craigslist (where I saw it) was a first for them. As a government agency, they tended to adopt new technologies for procedural things rather slowly. They also told me they probably wouldn't be posting jobs there again. Within 24 hours of posting the listing, my interviewer said, they had about 200 applications in hand. In the end, of those, there were maybe 3-4 that they felt were worth calling for an interview, of which I was one.
Sure, I was flattered. But I also knew I wasn't a perfect fit for this job, either. It wasn't quite the same thing I had been doing before, but I was enthusiastic about the opportunity and was willing to be flexible. So I asked them -- in one of those "do you have any questions to ask us?" interview moments -- what was it about the other 196 applicants that had ruled them out? What, typically, had been a red flag for them?
The interviewer said it wasn't really anything like that. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the applicants had no business applying for this job anyway. Some were fresh out of college, with no experience whatsoever and no hint of what might make them a good fit for this particular position. Others had experience in seemingly unrelated areas -- a lot of generic business managers, and even some with mainly restaurant experience. Some had a poor grasp of English. A lot of them just seemed like cookie-cutter, form letter applications. One thing I always do when applying for a job is try to attach a cover letter with my resume to explain what it is about the opportunity that appeals to me; apparently, most people don't even do that. So in the end, they were left sifting through this big stack of paper, most of which looked like garbage to them. It was like coming back from a long vacation and having to sift through all the junk mail in your mailbox, to make sure you don't throw away any paychecks.
But if you read through all that hoping to find my explanation, unfortunately I have none. It makes some sense to me to apply for a job you're not fully qualified for -- how else do you grow? But to apply for a job you don't even really want doesn't make much sense to me. I've even walked out of in-person interviews convinced I won't take the job if they call me back. Life's too short. Similarly, to apply for a job that you do want but to not even really try -- not even bothering to tweak your resume so it lists a few of the asked-for skills? What's up with that?
Am I the only one here who is disgusted with HR in general? Even the term "Human Resources"is abhorrent to me
You think that's bad? I was once contacted by a rep who wanted to know if I wanted to evaluate her company's "human capital management" software -- which is apparently becoming the new preferred term. I almost spit out my coffee. "What?" I said. "Did you really just say human cattle management?"
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
If it is censorship then it's a very mild kind. If I'm a magazine editor and I choose not to accept an article from you because I don't like the things you say in it, that could be considered a form of censorship, too -- but just as in the button case, you're free to go somewhere else to publish your work. It's not like you've been gagged.
They are not. The guy can go get his buttons printed anywhere he wants. The company they told to remove the buttons is Zazzle. Nobody else is affected in any way.
Zazzle is just the printer. By going after Zazzle, they are going after someone who has no real incentive to fight them (because it's more trouble than it's worth for one low-volume customer). It's actually worse than if they were to go after the button designer personally.
No it isn't. Zazzle isn't "just the printer." They print the buttons on demand and handle all order processing and fulfillment. Generally speaking, more of the revenue from each sale goes to Zazzle than to the designer. And Zazzle can potentially offer thousands of different Tolkien-themed products -- provided the Tolkien Estate allows it. That's the whole thing about trademark law is enforced: You have to demonstrate that you're vigorously protecting your trademarks. Going after Zazzle, which has every incentive to be a repeat offender if it can get away with it, makes much more sense than going after one guy who uploaded a JPEG to Zazzle so he could get a dollar or two per button.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the Flash files I used weren't created by me, so I couldn't publish screenshots for comparison for copyright reasons. As for code snippets, they tend to turn off more people than they pull in. In either case, though, what you'd see wouldn't be terribly enlightening. A screenshot from Firefox or IE would reveal... a big white square. A screenshot from Chrome would look a lot like the original Flash movie; what you wouldn't see is that the animations and controls aren't working right.
As for code samples, what JavaScript is generated doesn't do much more than handle rollover states and give you a starting point from where you can write the JavaScript interactivity yourself. The generated jQuery function looks like this:
.wlby_graphic').each(function()
... and so on. This just repeats for every symbol in the Flash movie, for about 1,700 lines. (I would post more, but the /. comment filter is telling me there's too much whitespace and repitition.) As I mention in the article, there is no text in the generated HTML; all the text is
$(document).ready(function() {
$('.wlby_sprite').each(function()
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationIteration', function(evt) { wlby_loop_children(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) });
$('.wlby_sprite,
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationStart', function(evt) { wlby_activate_children(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) });
$('.wlby_fs').each(function()
{ this.addEventListener('webkitAnimationEnd', function(evt) { wlby_activate_sibling(evt, this); return false; }, false, false) });
});
And that's it. The generated HTML looks something like this:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<!-- Created with Adobe(R) technology -->
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8"></meta>
<link href="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"></link>
<script type="text/javascript" src="jquery-1.4.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<div class="wlby_movie">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_0.svg" class="wlby_1"/>
<div class="wlby_2 eat_mc">
<!-- Start of symbol: eat_mc -->
<div class="wlby_button">
<div class="wlby_button_normal">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_1.svg" class="wlby_3"></img>
</div>
<div class="wlby_button_hover wlby_button_active">
<img src="Final_Infographic_v7-CS5_assets/svgblock_2.svg" class="wlby_3"></img>
</div>
</div>
<!-- End of symbol: eat_mc -->
</div>
You might try to look at the number on the front door for that.
Ah, but then you've gone outside, and you've fallen into their trap!
Seriously, though, when I said "for general navigation," I mean the kind of thing where I want to find the nearest Pizza Hut, Point A to Point B. But for other kinds of geolocation applications, you might want a finer-grained result. The military and law enforcement applications are obvious (can't exactly check the number on the front door once you're chasing somebody through a building). But there are commercial applications, too. Suppose you're in a mall, and you want to know how to get from where you are now to the Old Navy store. A forward-thinking mall might provide an app for that. But if your location data is only accurate to within 1,000m and it doesn't include elevation, that application won't work -- at least, not any better than looking at the big plastic map in the courtyard. (Mind you, my phone gets pretty crappy GPS reception most of the time, but when it's working well it can pinpoint me to within 4m.)
Oh, and if it's links you want, here are some facts on that for you. From the article, which represents the best data gathered by the CDC and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:
Each year, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes. Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate partner related physical assaults.
IPV resulted in 2,340 deaths in 2007. Of these deaths, 70% were females and 30% were males.
In other words, men are about half as much at risk of being assaulted by their intimate partners as women. (Note, however, that this figure also includes men whose parters are themselves men.) What's more, in cases where intimate partner violence is actually life-threatening -- as opposed to your slap in the face example -- the victim is far more likely to be female.
Next up, from the National Institute of Justice:
NCVS found that about 85 percent of victimizations by intimate partners in 1998 were against women ... The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence ... A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men.
Emphasis in the original. And frankly, I'm going to go with legitimate studies from justice sources before I trust your theory about who prefers their partners to be a certain age -- a theory, I might add, that strikes me as coming from someone of limited life experience.
Your conception of security as being specifically about protecting women, not men
Obviously security is supposed to protect men, but that wasn't the point of the discussion. You asked whether I've ever seen a man physically assault a woman "even once," and the answer is yes, I have seen it many times. And your question is asinine, anyway. Whether or not I've seen a man assault a woman proves nothing, because all the data shows that most women are assaulted by their partners, family members, or other people who are known to them, and it usually happens behind closed doors. I'm talking about widely recognized facts, now, not your own opinion. I do recognize that men are often assaulted by women, and that it probably happens more than anybody realizes, but your claim that it happens more often to men than it does to women is not only unfounded, but at best terribly naïve and at worst, self-serving and misogynistic.
Also, I think navigation via cellular triangulation only works to pinpoint you on a 2-D map. It tells you nothing about elevation. A quality GPS receiver could tell you which floor of a building you're on, for example.
What would be interesting is if we could get navigation via CPS, Cell Positioning System. Everyone one of those cell tower out there puts out radio waves. Why not a receiver that can triangulate on multiple towers to determine a position, ADF on steroids.
Google Maps has used this method of geolocation for phones that lack GPS for a long time now. The problem is that it's not terribly accurate. It's usually sufficient to narrow you down to within a block or so, but not much better than that. It might work for general navigation, but it's not good enough to correctly identify the address of the building you're in, for example.
A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped.
I seldom follow recipes so slavishly. If it calls for a cup of broccoli, I don't get out the measuring cup. I just eyeball it. The point is not to nail the directions just right, the point is to have the meal look and taste good, so I'll throw in as much broccoli and chop it as finely as suits my taste, based on the recommended amount. After all, maybe I just like broccoli more than the author does? And too little broccoli is seldom going to impact the flavor of a whole dish very much, unless you're pureeing it into a soup or something (in which case the recipe might call for a certain volume of puree).
With certain spices, of course, a small change can impact the flavor of the recipe a lot. But even then, measuring out a quarter of a gram of turmeric is far too cumbersome for me; I use measuring spoons, and sometimes I've been known to use "heaping" spoons, if I understand the particular spice.
The really crappy thing was that, when I was in school, I wasn't a U.S. citizen, but I was supposed to say the pledge along with all the other kids anyway. As I grew toward high school age, this bothered me for a number of reasons:
On another level, as a citizen of three countries today, I just don't believe in the kind of flag-waving patriotism that has people swearing loyalty oaths -- especially when their only real connection to a given geographic region is an accident of birth. I had to jump through a whole lot of hoops to become a U.S. citizen. I'm proud that I am one, but I swore a real loyalty oath when I was naturalized; I don't feel a need to ever say one again, to anyone. My loyalty is on file with the Department of Homeland Security -- fat lot of good it will ever do me.
Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between them trivially.
OK, but does your scale suggest that you chop finely or chop roughly? And how does it help you find the right grain for either chop?
Have you ever seen a man attack a women physically even once?
Uhhhh... OK, wow. Just plain wow. You talk about "what rock you must have been living under" and you ask a question like this? My advice to you is to work security at a bar for one week. Be the guy whose job is to prevent men from physically assaulting women -- like I have done -- and then come back and talk.
As for the second article you cite, let me just quote the first sentence: "Very little in known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by women." You may have heard the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data"? Yeah, well, the admission of having no data is not data, either.
As for men wanting young women and women preferring same age partners, I don't know what rock you must have been living under to not know that, but here's some data:
From the very story you cite: "Except in their early to mid-twenties, when they apparently want nothing to do with younger guys (i.e. guys who are still in school?), women show an admirable openness to both reasonably younger and reasonably older men." In other words, relationships happen between all sorts of people -- mostly, though, between the kind of people who don't let their own prejudices get in the way of meeting people. You dig? Cuz honestly, pal, if you actually have any interest in getting laid at all, you really need to work on your hangups. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences and have maybe suffered some abuse yourself -- I'm sorry about that, but you really shouldn't use that as a guide for the rest of the way the world works, because your worldview just does not jibe with any world that I've lived in.
People don't want "realistic graphics" here. They want better-than-real-life graphics. They want women that look like hollywood airbrushed starlets, not reality.
I was thinking of a different problem. I can think of a number of Hollywood starlets that I wouldn't want anything to do with in real life -- and I'm talking strictly about appearance, now. If you make a videogame where one of the activities is for the player to have sex with women, the first time a woman shows up onscreen whom he doesn't find attractive, the game play grinds to a halt (pardon the pun) . The whole point of any game is to work toward goals; suddenly, there is no goal.
If you are honest you'll realize that woman-on-man violence is much more common than the other way around. One main effect that is actually real is that almost all men desire young women physically while women want same-age partners.
Wow, that's a whoooollle lotta generalization to support your own assumptions. I assume you've called a few rape crisis centers and family counseling practices to get the statistics to back it all up?
Well, that's true, of course, I spoke too broadly. This thread was about SMS (phones) and that was what I was addressing.
My Android phone doesn't require a Google account. It does require a Motorola account, but adding your Google account info comes after the fact. You definitely don't need a Google account to do SMS, which is completely controlled by the carrier.
The OpenSource folks, of which slashdot has a majority, seem to think that all patents are evil.
I think you're misstating the issue. Some /.ers may think all patents are evil. A great many more /.ers think that a patent regime that allows software patents is misguided, because such patents are easily abused. The fact that many large software vendors own patents purely for defensive purposes only proves that, as of 2011, it takes a lot of money even to enter the software industry, let alone to thrive.
How do we make sure we can access or backup those files in case Zuckerberg decides to sell out to Google or Microsoft
Wow. Are there really still people who think this is the worst that can happen with Facebook?
Once again, a story about a lawsuit posted to /. with a particular spin but very light on facts. According to one of the linked articles:
[Judge] Wallace also said the defendant AVELA Inc, which licensed Betty Boop dolls, T-shirts and handbags under a copyright based on vintage posters, did not infringe any trademark, having not held out its products as "official" or misled customers.
So according to one article Avela licensed the images, according to another they were public domain. According to one, the images are OK because they're not claimed to be "official," according to the other the images are OK because Betty Boop is public domain. What's the real story? Is it about public domain? Is it about the relationship between copyright and trademark? I have no idea. Neither the reporters or the submitter bothered to explain, or apparently, even to find out.
I said that was what was missing from the guy's list. I don't have a Mac, so I don't really know how Apple handles patches these days.
My second guess is that some people are on benefits, but they are actually working illegally or on vacation so they don't actually want any interviews or the job. It is a requirement that you be an active job applicant, so they send off a ton of generic, crappy applications for jobs they're woefully underqualified and thus have proof they've been applying for work.
That's a requirement for unemployment benefits here in California also, but enforcement is so poor that I don't know anybody who actually does it. You're not required to document your entire search; at random, they send out some percentage of benefit forms with a box checked on front that says "fill out the reverse side." On the back is a little form where you say when and where you applied, to whom you spoke, etc. But generally speaking, for professional jobs it's enough to say "I sent my CV via email" and "I never heard back from anyone," because that's how it really works most of the time. So really, you can just make up some answers if they ever ask you.
And each place he goes to, the Tolkien Estate will be right behind him sending cease and desists.
Prove that. My kitchen is pretty far from the Internet. "Where'd you get that button" is a long way from "your manufacturing company is not permitted to produce products that trade on the Tolkien name and intellectual property."
It's a chilling effect... if you call all the other editors you know and say "This guy's so bad, I wouldn't waste time reading this manuscript, or anything else he ever sends you."
But you agree that this hasn't happened in this case, right?
I think the current situation is that HR is overwhelmed. Partly due to the current recession and associated unemployment, but mostly due to the rise of online applications.
No. It predates that.
I once applied for a job at one of the Energy Department's national labs, and was very pleased to be called in for an in-person interview. I didn't get the job, but they were very courteous and seemed pleased enough with me, and a real-life HR person even phoned me to let me know I wouldn't be getting the job, but thanking me for my time and encouraging me to keep applying if I saw positions that interested me. (When's the last time that happened?)
What they told me during the interview, though, was that posting the job on Craigslist (where I saw it) was a first for them. As a government agency, they tended to adopt new technologies for procedural things rather slowly. They also told me they probably wouldn't be posting jobs there again. Within 24 hours of posting the listing, my interviewer said, they had about 200 applications in hand. In the end, of those, there were maybe 3-4 that they felt were worth calling for an interview, of which I was one.
Sure, I was flattered. But I also knew I wasn't a perfect fit for this job, either. It wasn't quite the same thing I had been doing before, but I was enthusiastic about the opportunity and was willing to be flexible. So I asked them -- in one of those "do you have any questions to ask us?" interview moments -- what was it about the other 196 applicants that had ruled them out? What, typically, had been a red flag for them?
The interviewer said it wasn't really anything like that. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the applicants had no business applying for this job anyway. Some were fresh out of college, with no experience whatsoever and no hint of what might make them a good fit for this particular position. Others had experience in seemingly unrelated areas -- a lot of generic business managers, and even some with mainly restaurant experience. Some had a poor grasp of English. A lot of them just seemed like cookie-cutter, form letter applications. One thing I always do when applying for a job is try to attach a cover letter with my resume to explain what it is about the opportunity that appeals to me; apparently, most people don't even do that. So in the end, they were left sifting through this big stack of paper, most of which looked like garbage to them. It was like coming back from a long vacation and having to sift through all the junk mail in your mailbox, to make sure you don't throw away any paychecks.
But if you read through all that hoping to find my explanation, unfortunately I have none. It makes some sense to me to apply for a job you're not fully qualified for -- how else do you grow? But to apply for a job you don't even really want doesn't make much sense to me. I've even walked out of in-person interviews convinced I won't take the job if they call me back. Life's too short. Similarly, to apply for a job that you do want but to not even really try -- not even bothering to tweak your resume so it lists a few of the asked-for skills? What's up with that?
Am I the only one here who is disgusted with HR in general? Even the term "Human Resources"is abhorrent to me
You think that's bad? I was once contacted by a rep who wanted to know if I wanted to evaluate her company's "human capital management" software -- which is apparently becoming the new preferred term. I almost spit out my coffee. "What?" I said. "Did you really just say human cattle management?"
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
If it is censorship then it's a very mild kind. If I'm a magazine editor and I choose not to accept an article from you because I don't like the things you say in it, that could be considered a form of censorship, too -- but just as in the button case, you're free to go somewhere else to publish your work. It's not like you've been gagged.
Because they are.
They are not. The guy can go get his buttons printed anywhere he wants. The company they told to remove the buttons is Zazzle. Nobody else is affected in any way.
Zazzle is just the printer. By going after Zazzle, they are going after someone who has no real incentive to fight them (because it's more trouble than it's worth for one low-volume customer). It's actually worse than if they were to go after the button designer personally.
No it isn't. Zazzle isn't "just the printer." They print the buttons on demand and handle all order processing and fulfillment. Generally speaking, more of the revenue from each sale goes to Zazzle than to the designer. And Zazzle can potentially offer thousands of different Tolkien-themed products -- provided the Tolkien Estate allows it. That's the whole thing about trademark law is enforced: You have to demonstrate that you're vigorously protecting your trademarks. Going after Zazzle, which has every incentive to be a repeat offender if it can get away with it, makes much more sense than going after one guy who uploaded a JPEG to Zazzle so he could get a dollar or two per button.