OK comes from "okay" which comes from a native American language, Chocktaw,
Sorry, but that's bullshit. (Do you have a citation to support this theory?)
The American Heritage Dictionary
OK. WORD HISTORY: Its origin was the subject of scholarly debate for many years until Allen Walker Read showed that OK is based on a joke of sorts. OK is first recorded in 1839 but was probably in circulation before that date. During the 1830s there was a humoristic fashion in Boston newspapers to reduce a phrase to initials and supply an explanation in parentheses. Sometimes the abbreviations were misspelled to add to the humor. OK was used in March 1839 as an abbreviation for all correct, the joke being that neither the O nor the K was correct.
-- You're the Zogger from Technocrat? Bruce was a bit of a bastard to pull the plug with not a word of warning, wasn't he. I'll never sign up for anything he does again.
The argument is that people should not be encouraged to want to see nude children, or they might seek out more of this and actually create new harm against a child.
So, basically, pre-crime.
I know that people do think like that, but it's inconsistent with so many legal priciples (at least, in contries with some pretence to human rights) that it's impossible for a law based on it to stand.
People on a plane will do anything to distract themselves from the cramped space, uncomfortable seats, stale air, stale body odor, and bad food. Including paying out the nose for booze, headphones to listen to a movie, or internet access.
the fact that the PRS is targeting stables to make more money is. Especially one with 2 employees.
They're "targetting" every place of employment, apparently. Just they got up to stables recently. Blame the government for making the asinine law, not the PRS for rationally taking advantage of it.
Why is it not illegal to look at images of crime scenes, death, murder? You see these in newspapers....
Because the circumstances are different. Why are you looking to impose a general rule here? Can you at the very least accept the possibility that child pornography and murder are different problems, that may require different solutions?
Because the circumstances are not different in important ways, and the "general rules" used to justify banning porn should apply equally to images of violence. Both supposedly would "create a market" for such images, both have been argued to influence the viewers to imitate the acts depicted. (The truth of these claims is not proven in either case, of course.)
The distribution of the images in question creates a market
Only if the images are sold. Not if they were downloaded by P2P. In which case, the market value is being destroyed (as the RIAA keeps telling us).
You're assuming that the abuse resides only in the context where the pictures are taken. I would answer that by saying that distribution of child pornography is abusive independently of whether the pictures were taken abusively or not.
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Perhaps you're talking about the subject's privacy being violated by the distribution? Anyway, that should be a much less serious crime, if it is a crime at all.
For the same reason that possession of elephant tusks is illegal. The possession doesn't hurt anybody directly, but the idea is that by making possession risky it helps cut down on production, which does do direct harm.
You could make buying such images illegal on that theory. How would downloading them by P2P, say, encourage their creation? It seems it would actually undercut any economic motivation.
And continuous attempts are made to make virtual porn illegal -- even cartoons -- in which no harm was done to anyone at all.
It's just a huge distraction to spend time prosecuting those who get off on looking at these images, pretending they're solving crimes by finding copies of what are often decades-old images. And has awful implications for freedom of speech and disproportionate punishment.
No. The reason for making some images are illegal is that we, as a society think that having such images floating around is a "real bad idea."
That may actually be the case, but it's certainly not the stated reason. And the stated reason, the preamble to a piece of legislation, is what should count in a legal case.
If a teenager sends it to arouse someone or titillate them, is it porn, and if so, is that tacitly illegal? Perhaps it should be, but it's not a felonious act.
Why on earth should titillating the person who looks at an image make it illegal? Isn't the whole reason (excuse) for making some images illegal that a crime was committed in MAKING it -- performing a sex act on a child -- whether anyone sees the image at all is really irrelevant to that, except as it serves as evidence of the act. Why is it not illegal to look at images of crime scenes, death, murder? You see these in newspapers....
It's just an easy score to catch some loser with a big porn collection, and does NOTHING to protect children (or actually does them harm, as in this case).
And I was fairly amused at the article's suggestion of making panels of lawyers to look and rate the degree of kiddie porn a given image has. Why are lawyers immune to the evil effects of looking at these images? Why does anyone else run the risk of becoming a depraved sex fiend?
Anyone else have RAM modules degrade over time? I've never seen this.
I have, a few weeks ago, in a chip that came with my PC about three years ago. I noticed the contacts were discoloured, possibly enough to cause the glitches, but I had already bought a new (bigger!) replacement, so didn't try to clean them up and retry, especially as the crashes they had given me before were rather traumatic to both me and my hard disk.
you would rather that the currently accepted theory not be encouraged to be subjected to any further scrutiny than it already has been either?
We're talking about primary and high schools. In which fields of science would such students be expected to scrutinise a current basic scientific theory and pick holes in it?
They aren't equipped to do that unless they're extremely gifted and in graduate school, if ever.
As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants". To advance science you have to understand what has gone before. Reciting talking points from some fundamentalist pamphlet is the opposite of that. They might as well be in a Taliban madrasa for all the science they'll learn.
From the link I gave, obviously. But I guessed at the quality of the MP3, apparently it's 256 k, I had assumed lower (and you higher).
A 2MB mp3 of a 41MB wave would be an average of about 68kbps. So yes the lossless+lossy skeleton of mp3hd IS more efficient than FLAC+320CBR-mp3.
If anyone wanted a FLAC+320CBR-mp3. It's at least 10% less efficient than just FLAC (or APE, etc), and the tacked on MP3 is redundant; you can get FLAC plugins for most soft players and some hard ones. Or simply generate an MP3 to order from your FLAC if your hardware player requires it. It's absurd to think you'd use such a wasteful format on a portable player. Even if you don't care about the gigabytes of storage, it will take several times longer to load the files or move them around. The idea is I guess for users to treat the files as black boxes and not want to manipulate them or use them in any way not sanctioned and specifically allowed by the vendor.
And I find it hard to believe anyone can tell the difference between MP3 at 256 k (let alone 320) and true lossless. Obviously lossless is what you want for archival purposes, but only a audiophile poseur could pretend to hear the difference. They certainly claim to, but I'd love to see them do it in a blind trial.
So this isn't so much MP3 with additional information as it's a lossless format which happens to use an MP3 stream as a component and is formatted such that MP3 players recognize just that stream.
I've seen some comparisons at another site. A 41 MB wave file gives a 20 MB FLAC, and 22 MB MP3HD. So if the MP3 was indeed a skeleton of the lossless portion, it isn't very efficient. It's the same size as a normal lossless format + a separate MP3, stuffed into the same file. Actually, I doubt the MP3 has any use at all in the lossless playback, but I am ready to be corrected if anyone can cite something and not just speculate.
Have the probabilities been weighed up of locked cockpit doors theoretically hindering help in an emergency, versus theoretically hindering attacks? Has anyone done any study or reasoning on this at all?
If you're talking about getting the crew out of the cockpit in a hurry, I think they could smash the windows if necessary. If it seemed necessary, they could install an explosive release.
In any case, they do take safety extremely seriously on airplanes, as opposed to the bullshit in the airports, so I'm sure they have weighed the risks.
Actually the liquid bomb threat was real though you should question why it took 10 years for security to crack down on it.
No, the liquid bomb threat wasn't real. Not the way those losers supposedly tried it anyway. And have you heard there are explosive solids? Should we then ban all solids from flights? If not, how is it different?
The link you gave says that bomb was nitroglycerin. Well, that should be detected in any case, if they're using chemical or dog sniffers.
I think the airline restrictions are pretty stupid myself, but mainly for reasons you probably haven't thought of. However, having a military background, I can assure you that your belief that small volumes of fluids can't be used to cause catastrophic damage is sorely in need of a reality check.
Suicide bombers on planes are very rare, and usually pretty dumb. None of those who've tried have had any chance of carrying it off. And if there were a competent suicide bomber, he'd have no trouble circumventing the current security.
I don't think they've ever caught a real bomber, just idiot wannabes like Richard Reid. (And in his honour, now they pay particular attention to combat boots, though he was actually wearing sports shoes.)
Just because I pointed out how you can't even do a Google search, no need to take it personally. I'd already forgotten that till I checked your posts to see why you had it in for me.
When weighed against a possible loss of lives, the cost of an hour's business at a Windmill is insignificant.
This argument can be used to justify anything the police decide to do, even if as in this case, there was NO RISK AT ALL. As in the even sillier case of the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" hysteria in Boston. Even if the frontline staff know, or should have known, that there was no danger at all, the response by ass-covering bureaucrats is to declare a full terror alert.
And all the airline security measures, the idiotic restrictions on liquids because of a fantasy threat that could never have been carried out are the same. NO ONE IS SAFER because of this security theatre.
Now I think you're just being intentionally obtuse.
Now I think you're an asshole.
Did I say we didn't need a temperature scale other than for weather? Did anyone? Are you reading some alternate reality version of slashdot?
I was replying to this post by "Glith" :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1167077&cid=27255687
NOT TO YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but that's bullshit. (Do you have a citation to support this theory?)
-- You're the Zogger from Technocrat? Bruce was a bit of a bastard to pull the plug with not a word of warning, wasn't he. I'll never sign up for anything he does again.
So, basically, pre-crime.
I know that people do think like that, but it's inconsistent with so many legal priciples (at least, in contries with some pretence to human rights) that it's impossible for a law based on it to stand.
Or picking up a paperback book.
They're "targetting" every place of employment, apparently. Just they got up to stables recently. Blame the government for making the asinine law, not the PRS for rationally taking advantage of it.
No, it's equine.
And anyway, the horses are irrelevant, the fee is claimed for playing to the staff (of two).
If that's the rationale, it should throw out all the cases, like TFA, where images were sent freely, or downloaded by say P2P.
Because the circumstances are different. Why are you looking to impose a general rule here? Can you at the very least accept the possibility that child pornography and murder are different problems, that may require different solutions?
Because the circumstances are not different in important ways, and the "general rules" used to justify banning porn should apply equally to images of violence. Both supposedly would "create a market" for such images, both have been argued to influence the viewers to imitate the acts depicted. (The truth of these claims is not proven in either case, of course.)
Only if the images are sold. Not if they were downloaded by P2P. In which case, the market value is being destroyed (as the RIAA keeps telling us).
You're assuming that the abuse resides only in the context where the pictures are taken. I would answer that by saying that distribution of child pornography is abusive independently of whether the pictures were taken abusively or not.
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Perhaps you're talking about the subject's privacy being violated by the distribution? Anyway, that should be a much less serious crime, if it is a crime at all.
You could make buying such images illegal on that theory. How would downloading them by P2P, say, encourage their creation? It seems it would actually undercut any economic motivation.
And continuous attempts are made to make virtual porn illegal -- even cartoons -- in which no harm was done to anyone at all.
It's just a huge distraction to spend time prosecuting those who get off on looking at these images, pretending they're solving crimes by finding copies of what are often decades-old images. And has awful implications for freedom of speech and disproportionate punishment.
That may actually be the case, but it's certainly not the stated reason. And the stated reason, the preamble to a piece of legislation, is what should count in a legal case.
Why on earth should titillating the person who looks at an image make it illegal? Isn't the whole reason (excuse) for making some images illegal that a crime was committed in MAKING it -- performing a sex act on a child -- whether anyone sees the image at all is really irrelevant to that, except as it serves as evidence of the act. Why is it not illegal to look at images of crime scenes, death, murder? You see these in newspapers....
It's just an easy score to catch some loser with a big porn collection, and does NOTHING to protect children (or actually does them harm, as in this case).
And I was fairly amused at the article's suggestion of making panels of lawyers to look and rate the degree of kiddie porn a given image has. Why are lawyers immune to the evil effects of looking at these images? Why does anyone else run the risk of becoming a depraved sex fiend?
I have, a few weeks ago, in a chip that came with my PC about three years ago. I noticed the contacts were discoloured, possibly enough to cause the glitches, but I had already bought a new (bigger!) replacement, so didn't try to clean them up and retry, especially as the crashes they had given me before were rather traumatic to both me and my hard disk.
We're talking about primary and high schools. In which fields of science would such students be expected to scrutinise a current basic scientific theory and pick holes in it?
They aren't equipped to do that unless they're extremely gifted and in graduate school, if ever.
As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants". To advance science you have to understand what has gone before. Reciting talking points from some fundamentalist pamphlet is the opposite of that. They might as well be in a Taliban madrasa for all the science they'll learn.
23 countries voted for the motion. The UN has over 200 members. The UN as a whole hasn't ratifed this and I'm sure never will.
From the link I gave, obviously. But I guessed at the quality of the MP3, apparently it's 256 k, I had assumed lower (and you higher).
A 2MB mp3 of a 41MB wave would be an average of about 68kbps. So yes the lossless+lossy skeleton of mp3hd IS more efficient than FLAC+320CBR-mp3.
If anyone wanted a FLAC+320CBR-mp3. It's at least 10% less efficient than just FLAC (or APE, etc), and the tacked on MP3 is redundant; you can get FLAC plugins for most soft players and some hard ones. Or simply generate an MP3 to order from your FLAC if your hardware player requires it. It's absurd to think you'd use such a wasteful format on a portable player. Even if you don't care about the gigabytes of storage, it will take several times longer to load the files or move them around. The idea is I guess for users to treat the files as black boxes and not want to manipulate them or use them in any way not sanctioned and specifically allowed by the vendor.
And I find it hard to believe anyone can tell the difference between MP3 at 256 k (let alone 320) and true lossless. Obviously lossless is what you want for archival purposes, but only a audiophile poseur could pretend to hear the difference. They certainly claim to, but I'd love to see them do it in a blind trial.
I've seen some comparisons at another site. A 41 MB wave file gives a 20 MB FLAC, and 22 MB MP3HD. So if the MP3 was indeed a skeleton of the lossless portion, it isn't very efficient. It's the same size as a normal lossless format + a separate MP3, stuffed into the same file. Actually, I doubt the MP3 has any use at all in the lossless playback, but I am ready to be corrected if anyone can cite something and not just speculate.
Please explain how it could land before crashing, or vice versa.
WTF? If it "landed softly" it didn't "crash".
If you're talking about getting the crew out of the cockpit in a hurry, I think they could smash the windows if necessary. If it seemed necessary, they could install an explosive release.
In any case, they do take safety extremely seriously on airplanes, as opposed to the bullshit in the airports, so I'm sure they have weighed the risks.
No, the liquid bomb threat wasn't real. Not the way those losers supposedly tried it anyway. And have you heard there are explosive solids? Should we then ban all solids from flights? If not, how is it different?
The link you gave says that bomb was nitroglycerin. Well, that should be detected in any case, if they're using chemical or dog sniffers.
Suicide bombers on planes are very rare, and usually pretty dumb. None of those who've tried have had any chance of carrying it off. And if there were a competent suicide bomber, he'd have no trouble circumventing the current security.
I don't think they've ever caught a real bomber, just idiot wannabes like Richard Reid. (And in his honour, now they pay particular attention to combat boots, though he was actually wearing sports shoes.)
Just because I pointed out how you can't even do a Google search, no need to take it personally. I'd already forgotten that till I checked your posts to see why you had it in for me.
This argument can be used to justify anything the police decide to do, even if as in this case, there was NO RISK AT ALL. As in the even sillier case of the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" hysteria in Boston. Even if the frontline staff know, or should have known, that there was no danger at all, the response by ass-covering bureaucrats is to declare a full terror alert.
And all the airline security measures, the idiotic restrictions on liquids because of a fantasy threat that could never have been carried out are the same. NO ONE IS SAFER because of this security theatre.
If you don't understand the conversation, don't step in and make an idiot of yourself. Just smile and nod.
Now I think you're an asshole.
Did I say we didn't need a temperature scale other than for weather? Did anyone? Are you reading some alternate reality version of slashdot? I was replying to this post by "Glith" : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1167077&cid=27255687 NOT TO YOU.