Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.
Next day. She hates you. End of story.
Welcome to the real world.
Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you of everything; no form of physical torture can compare. It will consume and destroy you; if it passes a certain point and you DON'T kill yourself off, you'll be left a hollow shell incapable of really recovering. You'll live a life lost, where everything seems pale and insignificant, incomplete, and you smile at the simple things when you can but still find no satisfaction in the finer joys of being alive.
Or you'll get over it, like generations of dumped people before you.
You're not likely to have an ongoing conversation with a fictitious person through the mail to the point that you think of them as your boyfriend.
Really? Ask Edna Krabapple. OK, you can't, she's fictional. But it was pretty much the same thing -- Bart Simpson responds to a personal ad by one of his teachers and develops a steamy correspondence relationship. Should he be charged with mail fraud?
Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".
The first problem, even for those who are serious, is that those other places tend to either have similar restrictions, other restrictions which aren't similar but are just as bad or worse, or look ready to pass one or the other or both. The second problem is that immigration is difficult, particularly if you don't speak the language.
Most people, though, will tolerate nearly anything, provided it doesn't happen to them. And a good number will, even if it happens to them, still tolerate it and assume they deserved it. Orwell got it right; the future of government is a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
Bellovin extrapolates from the DHS border policy on physical electronic devices and asks why authorities wouldn't push to extend it to electronic data transfers.
Umm, has he been in a cave for the past few years? Seearching electronic data transfers came first.
The question is: is there a semantically equivalent query that DOESN'T overload the system?
Yes, in the particular cases I ran into; I was able to reformulate the queries to avoid the problem. They were SELECT DISTINCT on a big hairy set of tables; by making that query into a subquery with SELECT ALL, and then doing a SELECT DISTINCT on the subquery, the problem was resolved.
Is it possible to bring Oracle down? I would think so, it would just take a lot (note: assuming normal hardware, not a large high-power cluster).
Oh yes, Oracle can be brought to a grinding halt (even on substantial hardware) by a big nasty query. It may not be crashed, but it's nonresponsive. Especially annoying when there is no need for the cartesian product; Oracle's pessimizer just chose to do one when something else was MUCH more appropriate. Alas this tool would not catch that situation (but EXPLAIN PLAN does).
In fact, other than on the TV news, I've never actually seen a Segway, and I have travelled quite extensively.
The rent-a-cops in the mighty King of Prussia Mall sometimes ride them. Though I can't imagine what they do if they actually have to chase someone. I can just see a misbehaving teenager staying 10 feet ahead and taunting the guard mercilessly.
10km in half an hour is only 20kmh. If you work in a physically demanding job all day, you should be able to do that for half an hour on a bicycle with no sweat. Unless it's all uphill.
Is it just me, or is English communication being progressively subverted by an incoming tide of innuendo?
No, just the opposite. It used to be all innuendo. Now there's a lot more outright swearing instead. Chaucer and Shakespeare are packed with innuendo, though much of it modern audiences don't get.
As for poor Uranus, I think you can blame Stephen Spielburg (E.T.) for elevating that joke out of elementary school.
The "National Enquirer" is a notorious scandal sheet.
The "Philadelphia Inquirer" is a respectable daily newspaper.
Well, it's a daily newspaper all right. The top story (front page above the fold) today was about how USAir has greatly improved baggage handling. It wasn't actually bylined with the name of USAir's head of P.R., but it may as well have been. So you can drop the "respectable".
...because if it weren't, you'd be able to go to the grocery store, pick up a case of Ben and Jerry's and a box of exercise pills, eat both, and become more fit as a result. The universe just isn't that nice a place.
Even a rough estimate using 2001 numbers shows that 1kW/house is too low by about 50%.
Eh, no. "Electricity consumption by 107 million U.S. households in 2001 totaled 1,140 billion kWh.". Which works out to 1.22 kW/house.
Yes, 1kW is only ten 100 watt light bulbs. But most households don't run ten 100-watt bulbs constantly. So it's the 10kW-using Anonymous Coward who is unusual.
Of course, 1.22kW is only an average. If all your appliances are electric (i.e. no gas or oil) and you have air conditioning, you're likely going to be way above that average.
And they'll take a fucking parsec. There's long been an understanding that searches (without warrant or probable cause) at the border are legitimate and do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, I don't think any court has ruled that the border search power is unlimited, and certainly doesn't extend to indefinite seizure of anything which might hold information.
Of course, DHS isn't totally dumb. They are going to be very careful to use this only on people who are unable to put up a fight (which probably includes you and me), allowing them to maintain their policy without court issues. The courts will likely help by denying standing for various excuses.
If you said "I am going to sodomize John Roberts", you would fully expect to see law enforcement at your door.
If you're lucky. If you're not lucky, Chief Justice Roberts will show up expecting you to make good on your offer.
Seriously, though, the cops may show up (rank hath its privileges) but there's no actual crime, because the threat isn't credible... nor even likely to reach its target.
The anonymous poster who wrote "she has herpes" sounds like a lawyer. He wrote something which is probably true, since a majority of Americans have oral herpes, but which will be interpreted by most readers as referring to genital herpes. He accomplishes his goal (defamation) while protecting himself legally. Shrewd.
More likely a law student, because a full-fledged lawyer would know that argument wouldn't be likely to fly; that in context anyone reading it would assume that genital herpes was meant, not oral or zoster. Well, unless the picture which started the thread showed sores.
Dosen't matter if the incendiary posts were written by people called "HitlerHitlerHitler" and "GoatseFan1" -- the hiring manager may think, "Hmm, he/she sure does have a lot of enemies" or "I'd rather not have all that controversy attached to somebody who works for me." Same applies to potential romantic interests.
Too bad. Simply being someone's vocal enemy and by doing so attaching controversy to them is not actionable, and cannot be in any way consistently with free speech.
Have you ever considered, that's exactly what human beings need? Human beings are so repressed, shallow, and cheap that perhaps it finally force us to come to terms with our darker side, and passions other people would consider vile. I'm sure there is a lot of unpopular sexual fantasies, not to mention forms of social organization out there that people want to realize.
No, it won't. It'll only make us MORE repressed, as only those who are either very clean (according to whatever society's conceptions are at the time) for their entire life or very, very, good at not getting caught.
Sure, if I were considering someone for a job and someone else showed me a picture of the candidate passed out drunk, or in BDSM costume, or smoking something which didn't look like tobacco, I'd ask why in hell they were showing me this. But I'm not the kind of person who hires people. THAT kind of person is likely to actually be horrified, and/or to be so afraid of what their clients/insurers/potential courtroom adversaries would think, they'd discard the candidate. So stuff which was once either completely harmless or at least had limited damages can now become a black mark for the rest of your life. That will create repression, not free us from it.
A remark like "she is ugly and doesn't deserve to live" is pure opinion, and protected. You can't protect yourself from libel by making insinuations instead of direct statements, so "I heard xyz" (where xyz is defamatory) and "I think she has herpes" are likely actionable.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer despite occasionally playing one on the net.
If it's small scale power storage you want, lithium-ion batteries are a much better bet. Even if this fancy MIT catalyst is 100% efficient in producing hydrogen, producing electricity from the hydrogen is quite a bit less efficient.
No, most houses have 100-200 amp service. At 120 volts. Which works out to 12000-24000 watts, peak. Average electricity consumption is right around 1 kilowatt, so the poster who said to divide by 5 was right.
"She has herpes" is libel per se, assuming the "she" is an identifiable real person. But "I think I will sodomize her repeatedly", posted on an Internet forum, in the context of a flame war? That's just immature chest-beating and feces-flinging. An assault requires that the threatened person feel a well-founded fear of immediate peril, and it requires that the threatener has the present ability to carry out the act. Neither of those is generally present on an internet forum.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the real world.
Or you'll get over it, like generations of dumped people before you.
Really? Ask Edna Krabapple. OK, you can't, she's fictional. But it was pretty much the same thing -- Bart Simpson responds to a personal ad by one of his teachers and develops a steamy correspondence relationship. Should he be charged with mail fraud?
The first problem, even for those who are serious, is that those other places tend to either have similar restrictions, other restrictions which aren't similar but are just as bad or worse, or look ready to pass one or the other or both. The second problem is that immigration is difficult, particularly if you don't speak the language.
Most people, though, will tolerate nearly anything, provided it doesn't happen to them. And a good number will, even if it happens to them, still tolerate it and assume they deserved it. Orwell got it right; the future of government is a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
Umm, has he been in a cave for the past few years? Seearching electronic data transfers came first.
Especially when Bezos himself probably bought about 239,990 of them.
Yes, in the particular cases I ran into; I was able to reformulate the queries to avoid the problem. They were SELECT DISTINCT on a big hairy set of tables; by making that query into a subquery with SELECT ALL, and then doing a SELECT DISTINCT on the subquery, the problem was resolved.
Oh yes, Oracle can be brought to a grinding halt (even on substantial hardware) by a big nasty query. It may not be crashed, but it's nonresponsive. Especially annoying when there is no need for the cartesian product; Oracle's pessimizer just chose to do one when something else was MUCH more appropriate. Alas this tool would not catch that situation (but EXPLAIN PLAN does).
The rent-a-cops in the mighty King of Prussia Mall sometimes ride them. Though I can't imagine what they do if they actually have to chase someone. I can just see a misbehaving teenager staying 10 feet ahead and taunting the guard mercilessly.
10km in half an hour is only 20kmh. If you work in a physically demanding job all day, you should be able to do that for half an hour on a bicycle with no sweat. Unless it's all uphill.
No, just the opposite. It used to be all innuendo. Now there's a lot more outright swearing instead. Chaucer and Shakespeare are packed with innuendo, though much of it modern audiences don't get.
As for poor Uranus, I think you can blame Stephen Spielburg (E.T.) for elevating that joke out of elementary school.
Well, it's a daily newspaper all right. The top story (front page above the fold) today was about how USAir has greatly improved baggage handling. It wasn't actually bylined with the name of USAir's head of P.R., but it may as well have been. So you can drop the "respectable".
They got publicity by
1) Releasing the track on BitTorrent
2) Whining about pirates releasing the track on BitTorrent
3) Getting caught lying about #2.
If intentional, worthy of Machiavelli.
...because if it weren't, you'd be able to go to the grocery store, pick up a case of Ben and Jerry's and a box of exercise pills, eat both, and become more fit as a result. The universe just isn't that nice a place.
Eh, no. "Electricity consumption by 107 million U.S. households in 2001 totaled 1,140 billion kWh.". Which works out to 1.22 kW/house.
Yes, 1kW is only ten 100 watt light bulbs. But most households don't run ten 100-watt bulbs constantly. So it's the 10kW-using Anonymous Coward who is unusual.
Of course, 1.22kW is only an average. If all your appliances are electric (i.e. no gas or oil) and you have air conditioning, you're likely going to be way above that average.
And they'll take a fucking parsec. There's long been an understanding that searches (without warrant or probable cause) at the border are legitimate and do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, I don't think any court has ruled that the border search power is unlimited, and certainly doesn't extend to indefinite seizure of anything which might hold information.
Of course, DHS isn't totally dumb. They are going to be very careful to use this only on people who are unable to put up a fight (which probably includes you and me), allowing them to maintain their policy without court issues. The courts will likely help by denying standing for various excuses.
So the word "rape" should be censored because the mere proximity of it to someone's name causes employers to arbitrarily discard resumes?
If you're lucky. If you're not lucky, Chief Justice Roberts will show up expecting you to make good on your offer.
Seriously, though, the cops may show up (rank hath its privileges) but there's no actual crime, because the threat isn't credible... nor even likely to reach its target.
More likely a law student, because a full-fledged lawyer would know that argument wouldn't be likely to fly; that in context anyone reading it would assume that genital herpes was meant, not oral or zoster. Well, unless the picture which started the thread showed sores.
Too bad. Simply being someone's vocal enemy and by doing so attaching controversy to them is not actionable, and cannot be in any way consistently with free speech.
No, it won't. It'll only make us MORE repressed, as only those who are either very clean (according to whatever society's conceptions are at the time) for their entire life or very, very, good at not getting caught.
Sure, if I were considering someone for a job and someone else showed me a picture of the candidate passed out drunk, or in BDSM costume, or smoking something which didn't look like tobacco, I'd ask why in hell they were showing me this. But I'm not the kind of person who hires people. THAT kind of person is likely to actually be horrified, and/or to be so afraid of what their clients/insurers/potential courtroom adversaries would think, they'd discard the candidate. So stuff which was once either completely harmless or at least had limited damages can now become a black mark for the rest of your life. That will create repression, not free us from it.
I think you're confusing "FRAT" with "STAG". Yeah, I know they're both four letters and all...
A remark like "she is ugly and doesn't deserve to live" is pure opinion, and protected. You can't protect yourself from libel by making insinuations instead of direct statements, so "I heard xyz" (where xyz is defamatory) and "I think she has herpes" are likely actionable.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer despite occasionally playing one on the net.
If it's small scale power storage you want, lithium-ion batteries are a much better bet. Even if this fancy MIT catalyst is 100% efficient in producing hydrogen, producing electricity from the hydrogen is quite a bit less efficient.
15 amps? 120 watts?
No, most houses have 100-200 amp service. At 120 volts. Which works out to 12000-24000 watts, peak. Average electricity consumption is right around 1 kilowatt, so the poster who said to divide by 5 was right.
"She has herpes" is libel per se, assuming the "she" is an identifiable real person. But "I think I will sodomize her repeatedly", posted on an Internet forum, in the context of a flame war? That's just immature chest-beating and feces-flinging. An assault requires that the threatened person feel a well-founded fear of immediate peril, and it requires that the threatener has the present ability to carry out the act. Neither of those is generally present on an internet forum.