Well, it didn't provide him with the right answer. Providing the *right* answer means if the source you're quoting is wrong, then you notice and don't just repeat nonsense, but correct it.
Not necessarily. In some cultures, it's acceptable and/or expected that the
culprit should pay a sum of money to the victim as compensation. If the soldier was always punished by the UCMJ, this would do _further_ wrong to the victim who doesn't get compensated on top of the previous offence.
In general, it makes more sense to abide by local laws rather than foreign ones.
If you're saying it's more transparent and more satisfying to the parent to
see them tried locally then I suppose that's possible. [I'm not saying the other thing]
It's not just more satisfying, it's the only correct thing to do, because the social contract goes both ways. It's easier to visualize if the situation is reversed.
Say you have an American parent and the crime is committed in America by some
foreign troops that might be stationed in America.
Now, the social contract implies that Americans are bound by local (American) laws. But the justification for those laws is not just that they are imposed on the American people by the government. It goes the other way too. The laws are there to serve the American people and facilitate a particular (American) way of living. They can be changed and adapted (in principle) to anything if the American people choose it, eg you could have a revolution and a burning of the constitution etc.
It's kind of like wearing a coat to protect against the weather, the laws are protection against anarchy and barbarism. And just like there are many kinds of coats and you choose to wear the one you like, the American laws are a choice of the American people, but there are many different kinds of laws elsewhere.
Now back to my point. The parent expects American laws to apply because that's part of the social contract of his community. He chooses to live in it just as it is. So when the foreign soldier is sent home to face trial and punishment, that's a failure of the American community to apply the laws it chose for itself. The only correct thing to do is
to try him 1) in America and 2) under American laws.
In particular (if you accept my argument above), it's irrelevant to compare
the severity of the punishments. Whether the foreign soldier faces tougher penalties back home or in America doesn't matter - what matters is if the social contract between the parent and American law is broken by skipping the local prosecution of the foreign soldier under American laws.
Do we really want US soldiers accountable to Shariah law?
Yes of course. When in Rome...
A US soldier should be like any other tourist, accountable to whichever laws of the land apply. Don't go to a country if you can't abide by their rules.
Now you might say, the soldier can't choose not to go there if his commanders tell him to go, which is fair enough. But that just changes the issue to: don't volunteer for the military if you can't accept the consequences.
I always comes down to accepting personal responsibility.
But it stops them from being prosecuted for raping schoolgirls. As a parent, do you prefer if a rapist is tried by the laws of your own country, or shipped overseas to face unspecified disciplinary action? Immunity for US troops is wrong.
Your safe combination is 12345, that's a fact (I know, I didn't see that one coming either).
Does it matter I got this fact from you by breaking into your house in the middle of the night, tying you to a chair, slicing your ear off and dousing you with petrol?
You are responsible for the software (in this case a browser) - it's yours,
installed on your computer that you are using. You have it configured to send
out tracking information. If you don't want it to send out such information,
then don't leave it configured to. You choose to use it with those options
enabled.
Nope, most people never configure their browser at all. It's got a default configuration that came with the computer (ie it was actually configured by some technician prior to delivery of the machine).
So they aren't making a choice to let the browser send out private information, they don't even know that they have such a choice in the first place.
I agree with you about responsibility, but responsibility is not the same as choice. And that still leaves the question of Facebook, whose tracking technology is explicitly designed to exploit the ordinary operation of popular browsers in their default configuration. It is very much like illegal wiretapping IMHO.
At the
end of the day this is not about Facebook taking your private information,
it's about you *giving* that information.
No it's not. *You* (aka the average user) aren't giving the information. You have no idea the information is being given, and in all likelihood you would object to giving the information if you knew it was being given (*).
So there's no consent (by you) when your *browser* is communicating with a facebook server through an unrelated website. Your argument therefore is inapplicable.
(*) proof: all major browsers have various kinds of privacy settings, which would not exist if there wasn't popular demand. The correct default position is that people do object to giving out information to random websites.
No, it's Facebook's fault. If some guy sells you stolen goods, you still have to give them back. Same principle.
Facebook are taking information from the browser, knowing full well that the person running the browser is unknowingly being deprived of privacy by his browser.
Hopefully this leads to people being able to have their DNA modified so that
those who can pay no longer have to deal with mental diseases like Alzheimer's.
FTFY. Well, I don't agree with the "hopefully" either.
In your previous points on this thread, you've repeatedly used "bits" incorrectly. A bit is the smallest unit of information. It represents an atomic yes/no question, a single truth value in logic, etc. When you have 2^10 different values, those 1024 values aren't bits. 1024 is only the size of the range of a 10-bit number.
In your ADC example, the bits are the actual 0/1s in the approximation, but the bits are not the waveform approximation itself. That's an actual signal intended to recreate the input signal. The logic flow that's used to make the approximate waveform, that's pure information. And information is measured in units of bits (it can also be measured in other units, eg trits 0/1/2, or nats, etc).
The logic flow is therefore a collection of bits - namely the sequence of zeros and ones that occur in a realization of the algorithm (eg like a length can be viewed as a collection of inches, or a collection of any other valid length units).
It was obvious he was talking about a hawk. For a nest of 'raptors, he'd need 3 cameras - one for the chick in front, and two for the chicks on the side;-)
You're confused. 1024 possibilities is exactly the same as 10 yes/no questions.
It takes 10 questions to find one value among 1024, using binary search.
So even though 2^115 is a big decimal number, that number represents only 115 independent yes/no questions. Or put another way: if you have 115 yes/no answers, and you want to represent them as a single symbol, then you'll need a huge number of symbols to handle all the possibilities, 2^115 different symbols, in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, is that the R2 unit we're looking for?
I don't. No points for second best. Close, but no cigar, etc. Being right means being *right*.
Doctor Who?
Well, it didn't provide him with the right answer. Providing the *right* answer means if the source you're quoting is wrong, then you notice and don't just repeat nonsense, but correct it.
You asked "How is Iris like Siri?"
Why do you say
you asked how is iris like siri?
"One moment ... I don't know."
Is it because of your plans that you say
"one moment you do not know?
Are you sure that is the real reason?
Is it because is the real reason that you came to me?
"How is Iris different from Siri?"
Maybe your life has something to do with this.
You asked "How is Iris different from Siri?"
Does it bother you that is iris different from siri?
"One moment ... Iris is backwards."
What makes you believe
"one moment iris is backwards?
Earlier you said is the real reason?
Perhaps my plans that I say one moment I do not know have something to
do with this.
"Should this have been posted on slashdot?"
Is it because of the people you hang around with that you say
"should this have been posted on slashdot?
You asked "Should this have been posted on slashdot?"
You mentioned that is iris different from siri?
"One moment ... That is what idle.slashdot.org is for."
When did you first know that is what idle slashdot org is for?
Is the fact that is what idle slashdot org is for the real reason?
Does the fact that is what idle slashdot org is for the real reason
explain anything else?
"Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
What happened when nobody's there?
You asked "Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
What would happen if nobody's there?
"As opposed to the rest of the time?"
Is it because of problems at school that you are going through all
this?
In general, it makes more sense to abide by local laws rather than foreign ones.
It's not just more satisfying, it's the only correct thing to do, because the social contract goes both ways. It's easier to visualize if the situation is reversed. Say you have an American parent and the crime is committed in America by some foreign troops that might be stationed in America.
Now, the social contract implies that Americans are bound by local (American) laws. But the justification for those laws is not just that they are imposed on the American people by the government. It goes the other way too. The laws are there to serve the American people and facilitate a particular (American) way of living. They can be changed and adapted (in principle) to anything if the American people choose it, eg you could have a revolution and a burning of the constitution etc.
It's kind of like wearing a coat to protect against the weather, the laws are protection against anarchy and barbarism. And just like there are many kinds of coats and you choose to wear the one you like, the American laws are a choice of the American people, but there are many different kinds of laws elsewhere.
Now back to my point. The parent expects American laws to apply because that's part of the social contract of his community. He chooses to live in it just as it is. So when the foreign soldier is sent home to face trial and punishment, that's a failure of the American community to apply the laws it chose for itself. The only correct thing to do is to try him 1) in America and 2) under American laws.
In particular (if you accept my argument above), it's irrelevant to compare the severity of the punishments. Whether the foreign soldier faces tougher penalties back home or in America doesn't matter - what matters is if the social contract between the parent and American law is broken by skipping the local prosecution of the foreign soldier under American laws.
Yes of course. When in Rome...
A US soldier should be like any other tourist, accountable to whichever laws of the land apply. Don't go to a country if you can't abide by their rules.
Now you might say, the soldier can't choose not to go there if his commanders tell him to go, which is fair enough. But that just changes the issue to: don't volunteer for the military if you can't accept the consequences.
I always comes down to accepting personal responsibility.
But it stops them from being prosecuted for raping schoolgirls. As a parent, do you prefer if a rapist is tried by the laws of your own country, or shipped overseas to face unspecified disciplinary action? Immunity for US troops is wrong.
Does it matter I got this fact from you by breaking into your house in the middle of the night, tying you to a chair, slicing your ear off and dousing you with petrol?
That's ok, look up. See that white disk in the sky with a piece missing from it? That's the Sun looking for something to do.
And ideally, water resistant office equipment in a well ventilated basement.
Upcoming stuff not care you do? When 80 years old you reach, promote as much you will not, HMMM?
I can do you one better. I can calculate any binary digit of pi that happens to be 1 with 100% accuracy: It's zero... uhm, I mean one.
Nope, most people never configure their browser at all. It's got a default configuration that came with the computer (ie it was actually configured by some technician prior to delivery of the machine). So they aren't making a choice to let the browser send out private information, they don't even know that they have such a choice in the first place.
I agree with you about responsibility, but responsibility is not the same as choice. And that still leaves the question of Facebook, whose tracking technology is explicitly designed to exploit the ordinary operation of popular browsers in their default configuration. It is very much like illegal wiretapping IMHO.
No it's not. *You* (aka the average user) aren't giving the information. You have no idea the information is being given, and in all likelihood you would object to giving the information if you knew it was being given (*). So there's no consent (by you) when your *browser* is communicating with a facebook server through an unrelated website. Your argument therefore is inapplicable.
(*) proof: all major browsers have various kinds of privacy settings, which would not exist if there wasn't popular demand. The correct default position is that people do object to giving out information to random websites.
D'OH!
Facebook are taking information from the browser, knowing full well that the person running the browser is unknowingly being deprived of privacy by his browser.
Whoa, it's still early days... William Shatner could totally get offered the part yet.
FTFY. Well, I don't agree with the "hopefully" either.
Sounds like a venereal disease. Do you think it will attract the social swinger crowd?
In your ADC example, the bits are the actual 0/1s in the approximation, but the bits are not the waveform approximation itself. That's an actual signal intended to recreate the input signal. The logic flow that's used to make the approximate waveform, that's pure information. And information is measured in units of bits (it can also be measured in other units, eg trits 0/1/2, or nats, etc).
The logic flow is therefore a collection of bits - namely the sequence of zeros and ones that occur in a realization of the algorithm (eg like a length can be viewed as a collection of inches, or a collection of any other valid length units).
It was obvious he was talking about a hawk. For a nest of 'raptors, he'd need 3 cameras - one for the chick in front, and two for the chicks on the side ;-)
So even though 2^115 is a big decimal number, that number represents only 115 independent yes/no questions. Or put another way: if you have 115 yes/no answers, and you want to represent them as a single symbol, then you'll need a huge number of symbols to handle all the possibilities, 2^115 different symbols, in fact.
Put it this way: If there was a breakthrough in AI pertaining to natural language processing, I'd know about it.