Far be it from me to be cynical {...ahem...} but this seems like a theory a creative five year old would come up with. Makes me wonder if the whole theory is not full of "dark matter".
Is tabulating and sorting votes really that complex of a task? It would seem that the greater challenge is to develop a simple and robust interface.
It almost seems you could whip up a Python script to do it as far as computation is concerned and store the results as a text file. Hard to imagine what kind of deep dark company proprietary secrets are being protected here.
There is a remarkable similarity between the steps that mitigate the greatest risk and steps the mitagate all risk. The only real difference is that it is easier to get background information on relative, friends, etc. than complete strangers. This makes them a bit of a "wild card".
If I tell my son that nobody is giving them a ride home from school other than mommy or daddy unless we say otherwise ahead of time, this will apply to friends, relatives, teachers, pastors, mailman, everybody.
see how this works? Why accept any risk if it is preventable?
As a parent ONE occurance is "statistically significant" regardless of whether it is friend of relative.
I am not challenging the statistical data I am challenging the charcterization of strangers representing an acceptable level of risk.
That it is a statistically smaller risk then relatives according to your data is beside the point, the risk is >0 and therefore significant. You are twisting my statement to suggest that I am "obsess[ing] about the former while ignoring the latter". I am doing no such thing.
The only statement I am making, which I will reiterate now, is that it is not reasonable to ignore the risk presented by strangers simply because it is smaller than some other group.
Therefore, my earlier question, "how many abducted/exploited children constitute an acceptable risk level to you?" is perfectly valid in this context.
Feel free to discuss this with anyone you know who has kids.
Your statement indicates a flawed understanding of what I said. I never stated it was common, only that the probability could not be dismissed as insignificant.
And, while my anecdote was factual, there are no "ovesized retarded green elephants that take speed".
You're just being an asshat, which is why you posted as an Anonymous Coward.
First off what do you mean "roughly"? It's one, the other, both, or none...not a lot of wiggle room here for a wishy-washy term like "roughly".
Secondly, and this is why I am responding, as a young child, an attempt was made to abduct me. The would be abductor was neither friend nor relative. He (actually they, there were two of them) was a complete stranger. He first tried the "I'm a friend of your mother's and she told me to give you a ride home" approach. No need to go into detail beyond that but, fortunately , I was smart enough to stay out of his reach and run down the road screaming my head off to attract as much attention as I could.
Don't tell me that total strangers "barely figure as a risk".
First off, while there may be obvious pornographic search terms, the range of human fetishes is such that otherwise innocuous searches are actually searches for sexually oriented material (feet, smoking, chewing gum, darn near anything else I imagine). So, it would seem to me that it would be more productive to focus on which search results were actually followed.
Also, just because a search term has a sexual/fetish connotation is not sufficient to imply a search for pornographic material. Even if it is, it does not explain the motive. Case in point, there is a registered sex offender in my neighborhood. From the local sex offender database, it appears he had either received or downloaded child pornagraphy. I have two young children. So, I'd like to know more about this particular type of fetish. However, if my understanding of the law is correct, an attempt to research this on the internet could put me in the position of violating the same law that required him to register as a sex offender.
My purpose is not to obtain illicit material, but rather to get inside the head of someone who may be a danger to my children. How would Bush or anyone else know the difference based upon a Google search?
Brayton Cycle => Most internal combustion engines which, when plotted on a T-S diagram looks like a curvy trapezoid that is larger on the right side. The upper and lower curves ideally represent isobars, but there are losses of course.
Otto Cycle => Diesel
There is also a three-sided cycle that covers pulse jets, but I forget the name.
Assuming that's where you keep the manual for you car. All you really need to know about your car is how to operate it and how to take care of it (what kind of fuel, when to change the oil, belts, plugs, etc.). It's not really necessary to know much about how a car works to be able to properly use it. Such information is available to those who want to know, but it's not necessary to know the Brayton Cycle for example, to operate a car.
I would suggest that this be your state of mind when writing your computer manual. I.e. focus on how to use it and how to take care of it.
We were talking about how bees fly back when I was in college (clap-fling motion or whatever). Pulling intellegent design into this one seems just a bit awkward, almost as if you are trying to steer the commentary in that direction.
it is possible to obtain stem cells without killing children? I don't claim any expertise in this area but I was under the impression that stem cells were harvested from stillborn/aborted fetuses. Hence, there was a serious moral/ethical debate.
So, if stem cells can be obtained without such a grisly requirement, what's the moral/ethical hold up now? I seem to once recall reading something about stem cells being discarded by hospitals as bio-medical waste. Is this true? Are we wasting time on a political turf war?
As far as fast-tracking medical research for the terminally ill, why not just appraise the patient of the risk/benefit and let them make the call? Some of us would rather go down on a million to one shot instead of wait for death, others may have things they must live long enough to accomplish (preprations for thier surviving family/children) so the risk is too great. Still others may see a benefit to society of giving the remainder of their lives as a "human guinea pig" as it were. If the patient is of sound mind to write a will, I would think they are of sound mind to decide their course of treatment.
Last time I used KMail, I had to install and configure SpamAssasin myself. Thunderbird (and Mozilla mail) and Evolution did that "out-of-the-box". However, KMail is a good interface. Right now, my wife uses Thunderbird because it is simple and available on both our Linux and Windows boxen. I use Evolution because I need to access my exchange server at work, plus, I kinda like Evolution.
One thing I do miss with the current version is that the pre 2.0 version had a start page that could be configured to grab a bunch of rss feeds. It was like my morning paper - I kinda miss that.
The best thing is that now you can update your bathrooms to a full "paperless" system. The whole thing works off the USB drive. It not only cleans, but re-formats as well.
{...at this point, men in white suits appear and start dragging StressGuy away..}
Wait! I've got a couple more!...Imagine a Beowulf cluster.....
{...men in white suits now give StressGuy a "sedative"...}
This is even worse than the one where took all these wannabee performers with no talent and let them to believe they did. It's just plain mean.
For this show, wouldn't it be a better idea to create a totally immersive virtual environment where, say, 5 person crews operate and live-aboard a virtual "starship". Teams could compete against each other from within this virtual world while actually living on the set the entire time. Of course, it would all be understood that this is a simulation.
I could be a very popular show, and it would promote teamwork instead of "laughing at the dupes".
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, I just find it amusing. If memory serves, I think the "Graviton" is also known as the "Higg's Boson"
Still, "Gravitons", "Dark Matter", "Strange Attractors", "Herpalhode(sp?) Curves",....sometimes it just makes me chuckle.
Far be it from me to be cynical {...ahem...} but this seems like a theory a creative five year old would come up with. Makes me wonder if the whole theory is not full of "dark matter".
I'll be less grumpy once I get some more coffee.
Is tabulating and sorting votes really that complex of a task? It would seem that the greater challenge is to develop a simple and robust interface.
It almost seems you could whip up a Python script to do it as far as computation is concerned and store the results as a text file. Hard to imagine what kind of deep dark company proprietary secrets are being protected here.
...try to mitigate the greatest risks
There is a remarkable similarity between the steps that mitigate the greatest risk and steps the mitagate all risk. The only real difference is that it is easier to get background information on relative, friends, etc. than complete strangers. This makes them a bit of a "wild card".
If I tell my son that nobody is giving them a ride home from school other than mommy or daddy unless we say otherwise ahead of time, this will apply to friends, relatives, teachers, pastors, mailman, everybody.
see how this works? Why accept any risk if it is preventable?
At the top of this sub-thread is the equation "risk = frequency*severity"
I ask him to quantify that risk value and that indicates misunderstanding? That I am "deliberately distorting his statement"?
Wow...
As a parent ONE occurance is "statistically significant" regardless of whether it is friend of relative.
I am not challenging the statistical data I am challenging the charcterization of strangers representing an acceptable level of risk.
That it is a statistically smaller risk then relatives according to your data is beside the point, the risk is >0 and therefore significant. You are twisting my statement to suggest that I am "obsess[ing] about the former while ignoring the latter". I am doing no such thing.
The only statement I am making, which I will reiterate now, is that it is not reasonable to ignore the risk presented by strangers simply because it is smaller than some other group.
Therefore, my earlier question, "how many abducted/exploited children constitute an acceptable risk level to you?" is perfectly valid in this context.
Feel free to discuss this with anyone you know who has kids.
Why don't you tell us how many abducted/exploited children constitute an acceptable risk level for you?
Your statement indicates a flawed understanding of what I said. I never stated it was common, only that the probability could not be dismissed as insignificant.
And, while my anecdote was factual, there are no "ovesized retarded green elephants that take speed".
You're just being an asshat, which is why you posted as an Anonymous Coward.
First off what do you mean "roughly"? It's one, the other, both, or none...not a lot of wiggle room here for a wishy-washy term like "roughly".
Secondly, and this is why I am responding, as a young child, an attempt was made to abduct me. The would be abductor was neither friend nor relative. He (actually they, there were two of them) was a complete stranger. He first tried the "I'm a friend of your mother's and she told me to give you a ride home" approach. No need to go into detail beyond that but, fortunately , I was smart enough to stay out of his reach and run down the road screaming my head off to attract as much attention as I could.
Don't tell me that total strangers "barely figure as a risk".
First off, while there may be obvious pornographic search terms, the range of human fetishes is such that otherwise innocuous searches are actually searches for sexually oriented material (feet, smoking, chewing gum, darn near anything else I imagine). So, it would seem to me that it would be more productive to focus on which search results were actually followed.
Also, just because a search term has a sexual/fetish connotation is not sufficient to imply a search for pornographic material. Even if it is, it does not explain the motive. Case in point, there is a registered sex offender in my neighborhood. From the local sex offender database, it appears he had either received or downloaded child pornagraphy. I have two young children. So, I'd like to know more about this particular type of fetish. However, if my understanding of the law is correct, an attempt to research this on the internet could put me in the position of violating the same law that required him to register as a sex offender.
My purpose is not to obtain illicit material, but rather to get inside the head of someone who may be a danger to my children. How would Bush or anyone else know the difference based upon a Google search?
I didn't mean *this* general public :)
Brayton Cycle => Most internal combustion engines which, when plotted on a T-S diagram looks like a curvy trapezoid that is larger on the right side. The upper and lower curves ideally represent isobars, but there are losses of course.
Otto Cycle => Diesel
There is also a three-sided cycle that covers pulse jets, but I forget the name.
I think "general public" includes women themselves....
{...boy am I in trouble now...}
Assuming that's where you keep the manual for you car. All you really need to know about your car is how to operate it and how to take care of it (what kind of fuel, when to change the oil, belts, plugs, etc.). It's not really necessary to know much about how a car works to be able to properly use it. Such information is available to those who want to know, but it's not necessary to know the Brayton Cycle for example, to operate a car.
I would suggest that this be your state of mind when writing your computer manual. I.e. focus on how to use it and how to take care of it.
*ahem*
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of {*WHAM!!!*}
[...didn't duck in time...]
...uh...nevermind...I forgot where I was going with this joke anyways
We were talking about how bees fly back when I was in college (clap-fling motion or whatever). Pulling intellegent design into this one seems just a bit awkward, almost as if you are trying to steer the commentary in that direction.
weak....
it is possible to obtain stem cells without killing children? I don't claim any expertise in this area but I was under the impression that stem cells were harvested from stillborn/aborted fetuses. Hence, there was a serious moral/ethical debate.
So, if stem cells can be obtained without such a grisly requirement, what's the moral/ethical hold up now? I seem to once recall reading something about stem cells being discarded by hospitals as bio-medical waste. Is this true? Are we wasting time on a political turf war?
As far as fast-tracking medical research for the terminally ill, why not just appraise the patient of the risk/benefit and let them make the call? Some of us would rather go down on a million to one shot instead of wait for death, others may have things they must live long enough to accomplish (preprations for thier surviving family/children) so the risk is too great. Still others may see a benefit to society of giving the remainder of their lives as a "human guinea pig" as it were. If the patient is of sound mind to write a will, I would think they are of sound mind to decide their course of treatment.
Last time I used KMail, I had to install and configure SpamAssasin myself. Thunderbird (and Mozilla mail) and Evolution did that "out-of-the-box". However, KMail is a good interface. Right now, my wife uses Thunderbird because it is simple and available on both our Linux and Windows boxen. I use Evolution because I need to access my exchange server at work, plus, I kinda like Evolution.
One thing I do miss with the current version is that the pre 2.0 version had a start page that could be configured to grab a bunch of rss feeds. It was like my morning paper - I kinda miss that.
I think I'm covered in this area, thanks anyways.
One does not typically go out of thier way to show that they are not interested.
The best thing is that now you can update your bathrooms to a full "paperless" system. The whole thing works off the USB drive. It not only cleans, but re-formats as well.
{...at this point, men in white suits appear and start dragging StressGuy away..}
Wait! I've got a couple more!...Imagine a Beowulf cluster.....
{...men in white suits now give StressGuy a "sedative"...}
This is even worse than the one where took all these wannabee performers with no talent and let them to believe they did. It's just plain mean.
For this show, wouldn't it be a better idea to create a totally immersive virtual environment where, say, 5 person crews operate and live-aboard a virtual "starship". Teams could compete against each other from within this virtual world while actually living on the set the entire time. Of course, it would all be understood that this is a simulation.
I could be a very popular show, and it would promote teamwork instead of "laughing at the dupes".
From the article:
"(rather than outer space where the wightlessnes is)"
You came real close to spelling "weightless" as "witless"
I'm just sayin'
Ya kinda knew Pinky and the Brain would be instantaneous, I was waiting for the first NIMH reference. 30 minutes though.....long time