The perp will be out in 30 days so he can make the rounds on TV talk shows...
If so, I'd be tempted to follow him around and heckle from the audience. On second thought, I almost certainly would have to wait in a long line to do this.
Actually what I think is the court should take into account is the fact that this person's brain is not developed yet which might lead him to do... that.. and think 1) it's a fine thing to do and 2) he'd get away with it.
He's 19. He is legally an adult and should have more than a well-enough developed brain to realize that sexually blackmailing women is wrong. Most people would easily grasp the concept years before.
That knocks out #1, which is really the only relevant point because you don't deserve any leeway for thinking that it's okay to do something wrong so long as you don't get caught for it. Poor impulse control and an inattention to the consequences of one's actions at that age is the opposite of a mitigating factor.
Agreed.
What scares me a little was the article earlier this week where the government wants to consider people juveniles up to age 25. Different context, but I wonder when this thought process will spill into the criminal justice realm.
I agree with others that the autism excuse is a little too convenient. But what I wanted to mention is that anyone who says "I have a LOT more of these that are better quality" whether the goal is political, bragging at a share site, or the vilest of extortion, they're always lying. If they had better quality photos, they'd have shown them to you. If the creep is trying to extort based on one or two blurry low light screenshots, chances approach certainty that it's all he has.
> Most vegans I met are low income (bouts of seasonal work and unemployment, informal or shared dwelling) so it's not trivially easy to maintain a good balance at all times.
I've noticed that. My own observation is that people with low motivation, few skills and a propensity to sleep on other people's couches tend to adopt fads like veganism and green in attempts to raise their self-esteem. But since these things involve work, efforts tend to be halfhearted and mostly verbal.
Holy carp. So all that's really needed (at least on the short term (without a strong magnetic field)) is heat.
I wonder if we can ignite one of the moons?
We can have heat after we convert the water/ice into hydrogen from Earth supplied machinery, no?
Localized heat, true. I was thinking lots of heat, on a global basis. Then plant something that will unlock the water and metabolize carbon dioxide, and you could eventually have a somewhat breathable atmosphere. Until it escapes again, of course.
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with; 1. suicide 2. homicide 3. radiation 4. equipment failure 5. missed supply missions 6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Where would these plants you speak of get the carbon dioxide and oxygen they need? You gonna give them little tiny scuba tanks?
C'mon now, wiki is your friend. Mars atmosphere (what there is of it) is 98% carbon dioxide, and through photosynthesis, plants turn water (in the soil, see TFA) and carbon dioxide into oxygen and chemical energy for the plant.
Wow, helping my daughter with her biology homework finally paid off...
Less than 1/1000 of common water is dissolved oxygen. Common air is about 20% oxygen. You would need around 200 pints of water for 1 breath of air. The water on mars probably contains even less dissolved oxygen.
Electrolysis to split the water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen is very energy expensive. Oxygen is very easy to compress and ship in tanks. Water is difficult to compress, and is heavy and difficult to ship.
Being able to source drinking water from Mars is much more important and practical than trying to use that water for anything else.
I suspect that an established, long-term colony on Mars would be more interested in splitting water for oxygen and fuel than shipping air from earth. But I agree that this may not be terribly practical with current technology. I've seen solar powered electrolysis rigs, but the output is comparatively tiny. Perhaps that there fusion power that I hear tell is (still) 50 years away might provide a solution. Fuse hydrogen to generate the energy required to split water molecules for more hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breathe.
Of course, another way to turn water into oxygen is grow things with it.
Lousy explanation using lousy measures... if your audience can't understand standard units, just say what fraction by weight would be extractable water.
And if they don't understand fractions?
I dunno, you'd say "the amount you'd drink with a big mac". But you're probably wasting your time because they don't believe in other planets.
It would make more sense to limit population growth of humans than to make them eat insects.
But to limit population growth, you need to either (a) convince people it's necessary and they'll do it on their own (not terribly successful so far) (b) force them to comply (not impossible, but would require changes in our type of government) or, I dunno (c) kill them off, I guess. But to move people to different kinds of foods is a matter of starving off supply, for instance by regulation or price manipulation, which are much easier things to do. Make beef expensive enough, and insects cheap enough, and you have expanded the segment of the population that eat insects. Which, of course, frees up more beef for the upper classes.
You're right; having an unhealthy diet (or not) is an entirely separate issue from what kind of an eater you are. Someone who subsists entirely on raman noodles could be considered vegetarian, I guess, but it wouldn't be very healthy.
Real vegans have health problems anyway, including being very irritable. I think I'm pescatarian, plus poultry. And cheese. And well, I very rarely get fish as I'm under the impression it's overfished.
I haven't heard the irritable part, will have to investigate that. (Although come to think of it, there is circumstantial evidence.:-)) I've heard about premature grey hair and joint problems.
I have osteoarthritis, and my doctor wants me to add chicken to my diet.
The general tendency, somewhat magnified recently, of government to tell us that for our own good (obesity, for the good of the planet, whatever is the issue of the day) we must modify our behavior, when our leaders have no intention of following suit. [1] The thought process appears to be, we should ride bicycles so there's plenty of gas for our leaders' armored SUVs. We should eat grasshoppers so there's plenty of steak for our leaders. And we should all reduce our energy consumption so our leaders can splurge.
Mind you, I've not had meat (except for fish) since the 1970's, my home is partially solar powered (with more to come as I can afford it) and my transportation gets substantially better gas mileage than a Prius. These efforts are worth while. What supremely annoys me is our fearless leaders telling us to cut back when they themselves have no such intention of doing so, except for the occasional photo op.
[1] Yes, Bill Clinton is the exception, being mostly vegan. (He admits to occasionally eating eggs and fish.) In his case, I think it was the triple bypass that decided him, rather than any particular concern about the planet, but he still deserves credit for the decision.
As a dedicated vegan I doubt he eats a lot of either of those.
Well, he *said* he was a dedicated vegan, but later admitted he still eats eggs and fish, (reference buried in the middle of page 3) making him a pescetarian. As a pescatarian myself, (I have sushi once a week and an omlett once a week) I feel it would be dishonest to call myself a "dedicated vegan", even though I haven't eaten animal flesh (exception: fish) since the 1970's. (On the other hand, I don't make a living in politics.) It's like being a little bit pregnant, or having quit smoking, except for a cigarette after meals.
Thanks. This is why I am not a lawyer. So instead of precedent, I should have said, if the troll loses, doesn't that create a ruling that can be cited and referenced in other court cases? I'm looking for a reason why the decision was made to continue with the trial, when the troll has suffered a major (and deserved) setback.
The summary doesn't give the real reason -- it's in TFA. As ctl-alt-del was a low level interrupt on the PC to restart -- getting out of a bluescreen or a hung desktop -- and given that it was absurdly easy to write a trojan that mimicked the login screen, it became necessary to force users to use ctl-alt-del to log in to be able to tell the difference between the real login process and a fake one. There really wasn't a better choice. People had already used the key combination for years to unjam windows, and it was an easy way to enforce a needed security measure.
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading earlier this week that "child" goes up to age 25 now.
So what the kid should have done, is get a job with the government.
The perp will be out in 30 days so he can make the rounds on TV talk shows...
If so, I'd be tempted to follow him around and heckle from the audience. On second thought, I almost certainly would have to wait in a long line to do this.
Actually what I think is the court should take into account is the fact that this person's brain is not developed yet which might lead him to do... that.. and think 1) it's a fine thing to do and 2) he'd get away with it.
He's 19. He is legally an adult and should have more than a well-enough developed brain to realize that sexually blackmailing women is wrong. Most people would easily grasp the concept years before.
That knocks out #1, which is really the only relevant point because you don't deserve any leeway for thinking that it's okay to do something wrong so long as you don't get caught for it. Poor impulse control and an inattention to the consequences of one's actions at that age is the opposite of a mitigating factor.
Agreed.
What scares me a little was the article earlier this week where the government wants to consider people juveniles up to age 25. Different context, but I wonder when this thought process will spill into the criminal justice realm.
I agree with others that the autism excuse is a little too convenient. But what I wanted to mention is that anyone who says "I have a LOT more of these that are better quality" whether the goal is political, bragging at a share site, or the vilest of extortion, they're always lying. If they had better quality photos, they'd have shown them to you. If the creep is trying to extort based on one or two blurry low light screenshots, chances approach certainty that it's all he has.
> Most vegans I met are low income (bouts of seasonal work and unemployment, informal or shared dwelling) so it's not trivially easy to maintain a good balance at all times.
I've noticed that. My own observation is that people with low motivation, few skills and a propensity to sleep on other people's couches tend to adopt fads like veganism and green in attempts to raise their self-esteem. But since these things involve work, efforts tend to be halfhearted and mostly verbal.
Just sayin'.
Holy carp. So all that's really needed (at least on the short term (without a strong magnetic field)) is heat.
I wonder if we can ignite one of the moons?
We can have heat after we convert the water/ice into hydrogen from Earth supplied machinery, no?
Localized heat, true. I was thinking lots of heat, on a global basis. Then plant something that will unlock the water and metabolize carbon dioxide, and you could eventually have a somewhat breathable atmosphere. Until it escapes again, of course.
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with;
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
Pretty much just like here, then.
Mars' atmosphere is already 98% carbon dioxide. If that's all it took, we'd be there by now.
Holy carp. So all that's really needed (at least on the short term (without a strong magnetic field)) is heat.
I wonder if we can ignite one of the moons?
Where would these plants you speak of get the carbon dioxide and oxygen they need? You gonna give them little tiny scuba tanks?
C'mon now, wiki is your friend. Mars atmosphere (what there is of it) is 98% carbon dioxide, and through photosynthesis, plants turn water (in the soil, see TFA) and carbon dioxide into oxygen and chemical energy for the plant.
Wow, helping my daughter with her biology homework finally paid off...
I think I've read that story.
Less than 1/1000 of common water is dissolved oxygen. Common air is about 20% oxygen. You would need around 200 pints of water for 1 breath of air. The water on mars probably contains even less dissolved oxygen.
Electrolysis to split the water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen is very energy expensive. Oxygen is very easy to compress and ship in tanks. Water is difficult to compress, and is heavy and difficult to ship.
Being able to source drinking water from Mars is much more important and practical than trying to use that water for anything else.
I suspect that an established, long-term colony on Mars would be more interested in splitting water for oxygen and fuel than shipping air from earth. But I agree that this may not be terribly practical with current technology. I've seen solar powered electrolysis rigs, but the output is comparatively tiny. Perhaps that there fusion power that I hear tell is (still) 50 years away might provide a solution. Fuse hydrogen to generate the energy required to split water molecules for more hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breathe.
Of course, another way to turn water into oxygen is grow things with it.
So in your universe a pint is about 32 to 42 ounces?*
* I don't "Supersize" my order, but many do.
Um, good point.*
* I don't eat at McDonald's at all, but I've heard of this "supersize" thing.
Lousy explanation using lousy measures ... if your audience can't understand standard units, just say what fraction by weight would be extractable water.
And if they don't understand fractions?
I dunno, you'd say "the amount you'd drink with a big mac". But you're probably wasting your time because they don't believe in other planets.
It would make more sense to limit population growth of humans than to make them eat insects.
But to limit population growth, you need to either (a) convince people it's necessary and they'll do it on their own (not terribly successful so far) (b) force them to comply (not impossible, but would require changes in our type of government) or, I dunno (c) kill them off, I guess. But to move people to different kinds of foods is a matter of starving off supply, for instance by regulation or price manipulation, which are much easier things to do. Make beef expensive enough, and insects cheap enough, and you have expanded the segment of the population that eat insects. Which, of course, frees up more beef for the upper classes.
You're right; having an unhealthy diet (or not) is an entirely separate issue from what kind of an eater you are. Someone who subsists entirely on raman noodles could be considered vegetarian, I guess, but it wouldn't be very healthy.
Real vegans have health problems anyway, including being very irritable.
I think I'm pescatarian, plus poultry. And cheese. And well, I very rarely get fish as I'm under the impression it's overfished.
I haven't heard the irritable part, will have to investigate that. (Although come to think of it, there is circumstantial evidence. :-)) I've heard about premature grey hair and joint problems.
I have osteoarthritis, and my doctor wants me to add chicken to my diet.
The general tendency, somewhat magnified recently, of government to tell us that for our own good (obesity, for the good of the planet, whatever is the issue of the day) we must modify our behavior, when our leaders have no intention of following suit. [1] The thought process appears to be, we should ride bicycles so there's plenty of gas for our leaders' armored SUVs. We should eat grasshoppers so there's plenty of steak for our leaders. And we should all reduce our energy consumption so our leaders can splurge.
Mind you, I've not had meat (except for fish) since the 1970's, my home is partially solar powered (with more to come as I can afford it) and my transportation gets substantially better gas mileage than a Prius. These efforts are worth while. What supremely annoys me is our fearless leaders telling us to cut back when they themselves have no such intention of doing so, except for the occasional photo op.
[1] Yes, Bill Clinton is the exception, being mostly vegan. (He admits to occasionally eating eggs and fish.) In his case, I think it was the triple bypass that decided him, rather than any particular concern about the planet, but he still deserves credit for the decision.
As a dedicated vegan I doubt he eats a lot of either of those.
Well, he *said* he was a dedicated vegan, but later admitted he still eats eggs and fish, (reference buried in the middle of page 3) making him a pescetarian. As a pescatarian myself, (I have sushi once a week and an omlett once a week) I feel it would be dishonest to call myself a "dedicated vegan", even though I haven't eaten animal flesh (exception: fish) since the 1970's. (On the other hand, I don't make a living in politics.) It's like being a little bit pregnant, or having quit smoking, except for a cigarette after meals.
Eat bugs? No thanks, I'll stick to birds, fish, and mammals. No escargo or grasshoppers for me, thank you.
It's possible that you won't have a choice.
Thanks. This is why I am not a lawyer. So instead of precedent, I should have said, if the troll loses, doesn't that create a ruling that can be cited and referenced in other court cases? I'm looking for a reason why the decision was made to continue with the trial, when the troll has suffered a major (and deserved) setback.
The summary doesn't give the real reason -- it's in TFA. As ctl-alt-del was a low level interrupt on the PC to restart -- getting out of a bluescreen or a hung desktop -- and given that it was absurdly easy to write a trojan that mimicked the login screen, it became necessary to force users to use ctl-alt-del to log in to be able to tell the difference between the real login process and a fake one. There really wasn't a better choice. People had already used the key combination for years to unjam windows, and it was an easy way to enforce a needed security measure.
I understand now. You have been completely wasting my time.