The sexualisation happens in your head, dude. Physical contact is not inherently sexual, it's just christianity's fucked up relationship with sexuality that makes it so.
In many cultures it is perfectly natural to take someone by the hand to show them the way somewhere, even if both parties are adult males. Most americans would consider it "gay". Now what sort of mental condition and view of sexuality does that require?
Not that many other cultures don't have their own serious hangups, of course.
Just another red herring thrown out by our great and merciful God 6000 years ago in order to tempt his creatures into eternal damnation for creating heretical theories about the history of the world based on the evidence he planted all around them. Nothing to see here. Move along.
You're right. In tyhe name of fairness I propose to keep the warninjgs, and also introduce mandatory labelson all religious texts, warning that the contents are or are based on unsubstatiated mumbo-jumbo and makes no sense in any case.
Yes the O does stand for oxygen, but that doesn't matter. For example, just becuase there is oxygen in carbon dioxide doesn't mean that you can breath pure CO2 and live
We all know that. So what? When absorbed into the the O and C are incorporated into yet other compounds. It doesn't matter which form they are in, the point is that oxygen atoms are removed from the system, and no longer available for the normal oxygen cycle of the ecosystem.
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
Well, christians do that to everyone else all the time, to the point of even having it as part of their faith that they are obliged to do this, so well gee shucks Mr. Respectful, I really don't lose a lot of sleep over that.
As for me, I think it's strong evidence that God was behind the Big Bang.
I think it's strong evidence Satan's behind it all. Or a disinterested experimenter who just wants to see what happens. Or maybe a large hive-collective of gigantic pink bunny-like creator-entities.
These airships are high enough that the problem won't vanish entirely,
Actually it effectively will. It may be a significant height compared to low-earth orbit, but compared to geostationary it's nothing. Or more immediately: think about the corresponding distance along landlines; not really very far.
This is where your little experiment went wrong. You used an address that was already on all the spammers' lists.
That's actually a good point, and it even relates to the experience I recounted. A rare thing indeed in this thread.
What matters is that you never stop getting spam. Its volumes is always increasing; and there is no solution worth trying unless it permanently reduces the spew
I didn't say it was worth it. I more or less specifically said it was not. I just wanted to point out that the much-publicised jump in spam didn't happen. But yeah, it could well be that with a fresher account the effect would be significant.
A reply confirms there is a live person behind the email address.
Yes, but a live address that isn't likely to respond well to spam. I find it remarkable that so many people love to try to look smart by repeating that old abiout unsubscribe just getting you more spam lists, while obviously noone has actually checked if it is the case.
Well, I have. At one point my spam bucket just became too big to check in any case (~200/day), so I thought "what the heck; let's see what happens".
I unsubscribed everything that worked for two days straight. Spam went down 50% over the next few days. Then started to slowly rise again, and after a couple of months was back on the curve that previous history would have predicted.
Interestingly, it seemed least effective for viagra and penis enlargement spam (which was also the class that often didn't even have a link), and almost 200% effective against porn spam (for the next two months, only one easily recognisable source kept bugging me).
So the idea that you will necessarily only increase your spam load by using the links does seem to be just a myth, and even the percetion that no spammers heed them.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm claiming the famous opt-out exploitation has never happened, that the majority of spammers will effect your unsubscribtion, that the effort is worth it, that unsubscribing is any sort of good alternative to a proper filter, or that spammers don't deserve to die in screaming agony in any case. Just reminding people that hearsay is hearsay, even if it sounds like the "expert" opinion.
Re:Friction Losses and Gain Stages
on
Lego Logic Gates
·
· Score: 1
I think a more realistic version would have each gate draw power individually from a main rotating shaft, whichc would double as clock. Much like a machanical cash register.
It might also be possible to come up with even simpler designs if the gate is powered: the swithching could depend on pushing unstable systems in one direction or the other. This would obviate both the need for precisely metered responses, and reduce the needed power on the inputs, thus improving fan-out.
Possible solutions to this problem are emerging slowly, like RSScache (feed caching proxy) and KnowNow (even-driven syndication).
Didn't Usenet solve this sort of thing decades ago?
One might want to modernise it slightly so you get shoter lag times etc. but the basic distribution problem is the same and the algorithms chosen have worked well almost since the start of th internet without eating up the capacity.
Did noone pay attention to this years' nobel prizes this year?
Medicine was awarded for finally figuring out smell, and it turns out we have thousands of different receptors. Many of them may be activated by several different chemicals to varying degrres, and and a fragrance may contain any cocktail of those chemicals. In other words: no practical odor source can ever cover any significant part of the odor "space" unless it can produce arbitrary molecules on the fly.
A neural interface would probably be easier, but that field too is not even close to the sort of precision needed for this job.
Since you take it upon yourself to evaluate xscientific merit, you have probably heard of the concept of falsifiability and realise its importance. Name some other crackpot idea that the arguments in your post could not be used to support.
Jesus fuck, I know the IQ of the slashdot readership has been going down, but this is just ridiculous. Here's a hint for you AC, straight out of Logic For Not-Particularly-Gifted Second Graders:
Previous poster: "So, yes, Gore DID claim to invent the internet."
Gore -> human
Previous Poster -> human
Remove the uneccessary attribution and we get: "So yes, the previous poster DID claim to invent the internet".
Also, your plot is a little thin. It's more like, "You, Space Marine. Them, Demons from Hell. On Mars. Kill them all."
Uh-uh. Slapped-on backstory != actual plot in game. Noone goes through Doom thinking "Oooh, I'm a space marine", thinking about the claimed location except maybe at the splash screens, and certainly not reflecting much over what those monsters are or why they are there.
Even in Halflife it was easy to forget about your own character between the various reminders, bit at least they made some headway. In doom there was none; exploring and killing really does sum it all up.
If it has flying skulls and BFGs, I'll recognise it just fine.
Now reporters saying that "Gore said he invented the internet" is not too far fetched
What do you mean "not far fetched"? It's plain wrong and that is all there is to it. "Initiative to create" can easily mean "decided to actually have it built, from the newly existing technology". "Invented" can not.
In any case, it probably would have happened without him
Eventually, but it could easily have taken years. Not that many suit-clad parent-generation politicians back then saw the potential clearly enough to actually go push for it.
Exeem is a decentralized BitTorrent network that basically makes everyone a Tracker. [...] Exeem will marry the best features of a decentralized network, the easy searchability of an indexing server and the swarming powers of the BitTorrent network into one program
IMO, the best feature of Bittorrent is precisely that tracking is not an intgral part of it, so the protocol and clients themselves are not tainted. It is basically just distributed FTP and actually makes sense for legitimate uses.
The combined solution will basically have "illegal file trading only" written all over it and will be treated as such. This is of course fine for suprnova et.al. but not for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
So while my preference may be the result of a culture founded by radical Protestants--which seems unlikely to me
Yeah, completely far-fetched...
In the U.S. people can live in cities of millions, and more or less feel completely alone
This is nothing unique to the US.
The rampant sexualisation there and the guilt complex behind it is, well not unique, but really quite extreme.
There's a subtle sexualisation of contact
The sexualisation happens in your head, dude. Physical contact is not inherently sexual, it's just christianity's fucked up relationship with sexuality that makes it so.
In many cultures it is perfectly natural to take someone by the hand to show them the way somewhere, even if both parties are adult males. Most americans would consider it "gay". Now what sort of mental condition and view of sexuality does that require?
Not that many other cultures don't have their own serious hangups, of course.
No need. We already have "Gimp Is Mock Photoshop".
There are more non native speakers on the web then native speakers.
Good. Less to worry about whenever they get restless.
That way French expressions are poring into the language in an unstoppable way.
Ah, but when you pore into the language, the language also pores back into you.
Just another red herring thrown out by our great and merciful God 6000 years ago in order to tempt his creatures into eternal damnation for creating heretical theories about the history of the world based on the evidence he planted all around them. Nothing to see here. Move along.
You're right. In tyhe name of fairness I propose to keep the warninjgs, and also introduce mandatory labelson all religious texts, warning that the contents are or are based on unsubstatiated mumbo-jumbo and makes no sense in any case.
did anyone else notice this?
Nope, not one. Move along now.
Yes the O does stand for oxygen, but that doesn't matter. For example, just becuase there is oxygen in carbon dioxide doesn't mean that you can breath pure CO2 and live
We all know that. So what? When absorbed into the the O and C are incorporated into yet other compounds. It doesn't matter which form they are in, the point is that oxygen atoms are removed from the system, and no longer available for the normal oxygen cycle of the ecosystem.
It wasn't a matter of oxygen being absorbed by concrete [...] It turned out that the concrete was absorbing the extra CO2
Last I heard, the "O" in "CO2" stands for oxygen.
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
Well, christians do that to everyone else all the time, to the point of even having it as part of their faith that they are obliged to do this, so well gee shucks Mr. Respectful, I really don't lose a lot of sleep over that.
As for me, I think it's strong evidence that God was behind the Big Bang.
I think it's strong evidence Satan's behind it all. Or a disinterested experimenter who just wants to see what happens. Or maybe a large hive-collective of gigantic pink bunny-like creator-entities.
"deserve" makes no sense in this context, since even to desire it in the first place defines you as a sad moron, no matter what your skills.
These airships are high enough that the problem won't vanish entirely,
Actually it effectively will. It may be a significant height compared to low-earth orbit, but compared to geostationary it's nothing.
Or more immediately: think about the corresponding distance along landlines; not really very far.
This is where your little experiment went wrong. You used an address that was already on all the spammers' lists.
That's actually a good point, and it even relates to the experience I recounted. A rare thing indeed in this thread.
What matters is that you never stop getting spam. Its volumes is always increasing; and there is no solution worth trying unless it permanently reduces the spew
I didn't say it was worth it. I more or less specifically said it was not. I just wanted to point out that the much-publicised jump in spam didn't happen. But yeah, it could well be that with a fresher account the effect would be significant.
A reply confirms there is a live person behind the email address.
Yes, but a live address that isn't likely to respond well to spam. I find it remarkable that so many people love to try to look smart by repeating that old abiout unsubscribe just getting you more spam lists, while obviously noone has actually checked if it is the case.
Well, I have. At one point my spam bucket just became too big to check in any case (~200/day), so I thought "what the heck; let's see what happens".
I unsubscribed everything that worked for two days straight. Spam went down 50% over the next few days. Then started to slowly rise again, and after a couple of months was back on the curve that previous history would have predicted.
Interestingly, it seemed least effective for viagra and penis enlargement spam (which was also the class that often didn't even have a link), and almost 200% effective against porn spam (for the next two months, only one easily recognisable source kept bugging me).
So the idea that you will necessarily only increase your spam load by using the links does seem to be just a myth, and even the percetion that no spammers heed them.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm claiming the famous opt-out exploitation has never happened, that the majority of spammers will effect your unsubscribtion, that the effort is worth it, that unsubscribing is any sort of good alternative to a proper filter, or that spammers don't deserve to die in screaming agony in any case. Just reminding people that hearsay is hearsay, even if it sounds like the "expert" opinion.
I think a more realistic version would have each gate draw power individually from a main rotating shaft, whichc would double as clock.
Much like a machanical cash register.
It might also be possible to come up with even simpler designs if the gate is powered: the swithching could depend on pushing unstable systems in one direction or the other. This would obviate both the need for precisely metered responses, and reduce the needed power on the inputs, thus improving fan-out.
Possible solutions to this problem are emerging slowly, like RSScache (feed caching proxy) and KnowNow (even-driven syndication).
Didn't Usenet solve this sort of thing decades ago?
One might want to modernise it slightly so you get shoter lag times etc. but the basic distribution problem is the same and the algorithms chosen have worked well almost since the start of th internet without eating up the capacity.
Did noone pay attention to this years' nobel prizes this year?
Medicine was awarded for finally figuring out smell, and it turns out we have thousands of different receptors. Many of them may be activated by several different chemicals to varying degrres, and and a fragrance may contain any cocktail of those chemicals. In other words: no practical odor source can ever cover any significant part of the odor "space" unless it can produce arbitrary molecules on the fly.
A neural interface would probably be easier, but that field too is not even close to the sort of precision needed for this job.
You can blame the schools all you want. But blaming them won't change the results.
But blaming the parents will? Oh, well, that's all solved then.
How about focusing on what can be done in stead of on who can be blamed?
Since you take it upon yourself to evaluate xscientific merit, you have probably heard of the concept of falsifiability and realise its importance. Name some other crackpot idea that the arguments in your post could not be used to support.
Insightful my ass.
"I made the start in creating the Internet"
create
To produce
invent
To produce
"I made the start in inventing the Internet"
Jesus fuck, I know the IQ of the slashdot readership has been going down, but this is just ridiculous. Here's a hint for you AC, straight out of Logic For Not-Particularly-Gifted Second Graders:
Previous poster: "So, yes, Gore DID claim to invent the internet."
Gore -> human
Previous Poster -> human
Remove the uneccessary attribution and we get:
"So yes, the previous poster DID claim to invent the internet".
Wow, that's awesome; now I can prove anything!
Also, your plot is a little thin. It's more like, "You, Space Marine. Them, Demons from Hell. On Mars. Kill them all."
Uh-uh. Slapped-on backstory != actual plot in game. Noone goes through Doom thinking "Oooh, I'm a space marine", thinking about the claimed location except maybe at the splash screens, and certainly not reflecting much over what those monsters are or why they are there.
Even in Halflife it was easy to forget about your own character between the various reminders, bit at least they made some headway. In doom there was none; exploring and killing really does sum it all up.
If it has flying skulls and BFGs, I'll recognise it just fine.
Now reporters saying that "Gore said he invented the internet" is not too far fetched
What do you mean "not far fetched"? It's plain wrong and that is all there is to it. "Initiative to create" can easily mean "decided to actually have it built, from the newly existing technology". "Invented" can not.
In any case, it probably would have happened without him
Eventually, but it could easily have taken years. Not that many suit-clad parent-generation politicians back then saw the potential clearly enough to actually go push for it.
Exeem is a decentralized BitTorrent network that basically makes everyone a Tracker. [...] Exeem will marry the best features of a decentralized network, the easy searchability of an indexing server and the swarming powers of the BitTorrent network into one program
IMO, the best feature of Bittorrent is precisely that tracking is not an intgral part of it, so the protocol and clients themselves are not tainted. It is basically just distributed FTP and actually makes sense for legitimate uses.
The combined solution will basically have "illegal file trading only" written all over it and will be treated as such. This is of course fine for suprnova et.al. but not for everyone else.
-TV sucks, and will make you stupid. Go make something with your hands in stead.