Now, if only "being fat" actually equated with "being sick" most of the time, you'd have a point. The BMI is an indication of how FAT you are, not how HEALTHY you are. That being fat also means you are more prone to certain health problems is a different issue altogether.
First off, it's not even close to absolute zero. Even far away from any GALAXIES, there's still a temperature of around 3 Kelvin. Sure, pretty close to zero if you compare it with the 310 Kelvin of a normal human body. However, temperature of an object so close to the Sun (1 AU) is hardly "deep space" 3 Kelvin, but more like 380-420 Kelvin (just look at the Moon's surface temperature) on the exposed surface (the one towards the Sun).
In order to FREEZE stuff, you need to siphon out the heat from the "stuff you want to freeze". The less dense (well, caloric capacity, but it usually scales pretty well with density, with exceptions of course) the "cooler" matter is compared to the "hot" one you need cooled, the less of a cooling effect you get even if the temperature difference is the same. That's why, for instance, you can sit naked on the beach on a chilly day and just get goosebumps, but if you go in the water you'll feel very cold (even if the water temp and the air temp is the same).
Space, being very close to a perfect vacuum, barely has any density at all (no, not even space is 0 bar), so no matter how "cold" or "hot" it might be, it won't make a serious dent in the temperature of an object FAST. At this level of thermal contact (almost none), most of the temperature gain/loss is not from direct thermal contact, but by temperature (infrared) radiation, which is orders of magnitude smaller as you seem to think it is.
The reason why water DOES indeed freeze in space is the vacuum rather than the temperature, and it's the same reason why you sweat. Water "absorbs" heat even if it keeps the same temperature when it evaporates (liquid->vapor), and water WILL evaporate as long as water vapor in the area is below a certain pressure. Water will also sublimate (ice->vapor) also "absorbing" heat in the process, but the rate of sublimation is much lower as that of evaporation. You could freeze water even at high temperature, and on the surface of the Earth using this method.
Actually, there is something that could create an intense cooling right after "going into vacuum": the sweat on the surface of your skin. Of course, the quantity of sweat won't cause serious freezing damage, but your skin will feel almost instantly much colder.
Water first evaporates, then partially sublimates in vacuum. That's why you WILL get a shard/shaft of ice (or a spray of snowflakes, depending on nozzle used) if you eject water in space.
Ah, I see you Americans are barely getting used to the idea of what we Europeans call "Value Added Tax". The fun part however (not in the "ha, ha, funny" way however) is that you'll probably get that AND THEN KEEP everything else in place too.
Diamonds are not a good investment... actually, not an investment at all. "Honey, stop wasting our money". That's basically the gist of it. "But you don't care about me if you don't buy me a diamond ring"... well, sorry babe, I expect a life partner WITH a functioning brain, able to process facts.
Gold ring, platinum ring, stuff like that, sure, why not. But diamond rings? HELL NO. You won't see me buying something like that, ever.
Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy. And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake. The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.
Well, for starters, the title is hardly correct. It shouldn't say "The Impossibility of Colonizing the Galaxy", it shoud actually say "The Economic Unfeasability of Colonizing the Galaxy, and the added Sociological Difficulties in Colonizing our Solarsystem". That being said, I rest my case, because, well, I just said everything that needed to be said.
It has been hashed out and reached the wrong conclusion, several times over, and not only in the post you linked to.
It's the conversation that's providing the distraction, and it doesn't realy matter how you're carrying that conversation, only how much attention you're paying to the conversation as opposed to the road. The only mitigating factor in "conversation with a passenger" is that the passenger you are talking to MIGHT alert you to something you're missing while talking back, while the person you're having aphone conversation just can't possibly do that. But then again, we're back at "how engaging the conversation is"... and that can be less engaging while talking on the phone ("uh-huh, yea, sure, honey, whatever you say, we'll talk more when I get back home") than a heated argument with somebody on the passenger seat ("what do you mean you're leaving me ? you @#$^#@#@!).
It doesn't matter where the distraction comes from, a phone conversation, a conversation with a passenger, you trying to adjust something (radio, air conditioning, CD player or anything else like that), eating something, reaching for something, anything at all that's causing you to divert attention from the actual driving... it's the PRESENCE of the distraction and its MAGNITUDE that's increasing accident chances, REGARDLESS of the source/type of your distraction.
"I fact, I think the test to get a Driver lisense should be substantially harder. You must be able to drive on the freeway, you must be able to parellel park, you must have decent vision, you must have a decent refleesx, you must be able to hear, and you must be able to know how to behave at a 4 way stop,you must be able to read and understand road signs and you must demonstrate all that to someone giving you a test. Every 6 year until 50, then every 4 until 65, then every 2. You must pay for the test."
Hello, and welcome to Europe. Well, not as harsh as you describe it, and not in each and every country, but you got the general idea right.
And before you tell me to RTFA linked in the grandparent post, I *HAVE* read the article.
Notice how their test DIDN'T include in their actual test phase a "passenger conversation" experiment phase at all. Also, the difference between hands-free sets and normal sets were minimal... but then again the experiment only required one hand, not two (and most non-US cars are driven with two hands, not one). I could go to lengthy detail in pointing out further defficiencies in their procedure (so the experiment is close to meaningless for real-life situations), about the insignificant increase in "miss rates" and so on and so forth, but I don't really have to.
So, why don't I have to ? Because their own CONCLUSION was that the CONVERSATION itself provided the distraction, as opposed to doing nothing, listening to the radio or a book on tape. In other words, talking to a passenger or talking on the phone is equally distracting and accident-prone.
So what's next, forbidding the driver from talking to the passengers ? Because, in case you are using a hands-free set while talking on the phone, it's not any different from talking to somebody else in the car.
Wiretaps *ARE* illegal unless authorised under "probable cause". The FISA ('78) was the only one offering some leeway in how wiretapping could be conducted OUTSIDE of "regular" law enforcement prior to 9/11.
And then, there's the "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" shortly afterwards. Quoting wikipedia on that:
"The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained the following civil liberties protections ("Safeguards"): [...] * Requiring Additional Specificity from an Applicant Before Roving Surveillance May be Authorized: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness in applications for roving wiretaps in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity in these applications in order for a FISA Court judge to consider authorizing a roving wiretap. * Requiring Court Notification Within 10 Days of Conducting Surveillance on a New Facility Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns the roving wiretap authority could be abused by requiring the investigators to inform the FISA Court within 10 days when the roving surveillance authority is used to target a new facility. * Requiring Ongoing FISA Court Notification of the Total Number of Places or Facilities Under Surveillance Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report enhances judicial oversight to address any concerns that the roving wiretap authority could be abused. Specifically, the conference report requires the FISA Court to be informed on an ongoing basis of the total number of places or facilities under surveillance using a roving wiretap authority. * Requiring Additional Specificity in a FISA Court Judges Order Authorizing a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness about the target in a FISA Court judges order authorizing a roving wiretap in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity."
Basically, it's no question that the wiretaps are legal or illegal, they were obviously and intentionally abusing a PROBABLE legal grey area in between, exploiting weaknesses in the promulgated legislation. With this, the legislators try to FINALLY DEEM IT ILLEGAL FOR GOOD, to eliminate all probable legal uncertainties regarding them that MIGHT have been exploited to CLAIM they are legal in the first place.
One more thing to add in the "only in America" list of things: "Only in America, you need to pass a new law deeming something already illegal to be actually illegal".
* First Person Clubber : a prehistoric combat game for control of a cave network
* a game where the hero must stop the forces of Heaven from invading Earth : take that, fluffy angels !
* we're invading an alien planet and ONOES we forgot the activation keys home, so nuking the site from orbit is not an option : slaughter all helpless life on the planet to make space for humankind
* a reenactment of the Vietnam war : we know you hate being reminded of it, but nobody's done it before so hey, dibs on it
Hooray for innovative concepts ! Wonder which one he'll be picking...
I could guess the only other building that even comes close is in Romania, Bucharest... namely, the building formerly known as "Casa Poporului" ("house of the people"). It was one of the most megalomaniac projects of former "Socialist Republic of Romania" Communist party leader Nicolae Ceausescu.
The answer to your "real question" (and quite coincidentally also the answer to your "second complaint") is actually quite simple. Simple, but not pleasant, in the end.
The answer is that "an innocent has nothing to fear if he's being watched". The innocent would actually WANT to be watched permanently, so that his innocence can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But then again, one would have to have complete faith in the government, that the government's view on what's innocent vs what's criminal is the same as each person's own viewpoint on the matter. Also, one would have to assume the government is actually benevolent, or even forgiving, which, to put it mildly, it's almost never the case. Bottom line is that people never trust their governments fully. The amount of trust people actually have in their government will reflect the amount of intrusion they'll wilfully accept (or rather said, tolerate) in their lives.
The two possible extremes are, on one side anarchy (every man is his own master, and you fully trust yourself but nobody else) and at the opposite end of the spectrum, a perfect, true democracy, where each person's actual desires and needs are taken into account fully and according to that person's true value for the well-being of society, and everybody knows (or has the means to know) absolutely everything anybody else has ever done or is doing right now.
None of those are acceptable answers for our day and age, for more or less obvious reasons, so we have no choice but to accept the fact a compromise must be made. Where exactly on the scale the compromise lies, will always depend on the "wisdom" of the general population on one side, and economic/technological level on the other.
Disclaimers: * this is not necessarily directed at the OP * I don't live in the US, I don't live in the UK * this is not a political comment
Now, this one bit always irked me badly whenever I would see something on/. or somewhere else regarding the rapidly increasing (both technologically and numerically) public places surveillance network... the "irk" was with the so-called "privacy concerns".
HOW THE HELL does one manage to get "PUBLIC places surveillance" and "PRIVACY concerns" in the same sentence, refering to the same issue, without literally imploding from sheer vacuum in their cranial cavity ? It's a PUBLIC place, forgodssake, you are NOT EXPECTED to get ANY KIND OF PRIVACY in a freaking public place, dammit !
Moreso, it would be advisable to have absolutely ZERO privacy in ANY public place, and that for each and every individual in a public place. Want privacy, go home, or rent a room, or sit in a cabin, or any other PRIVATE place, where you CAN have your privacy.
Now, would they be talking about surveillance cameras/microphones in your home, or blanket wiretaps on your phones, or any other intrusion in your privacy, well, THAT would be too much. Or, maybe if they were talking about cameras that can see through your clothes (as if, but you never know), or about powerful directional microphones capable of catching up a whisper, or about cameras with high enough definition and FPS so that they could lip-read from you... THAT would also be borderline invasive (even in public, you can create a semblance of privacy by, say, sitting at a table at a cafe, for instance).
Newsflash, UK ain't worse off with regards to privacy concerns. Oh, well, sorry for the yelling, and in the end, it did get somewhat political, but still, the core argument remains. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIVACY IN PUBLIC, PERIOD
I love it how people say it's all about the coffeeeeeeeeee beans, and how you roast them, or it's all about the method and yada yada yada and forget a lot of othert important factors.
To be honest, indeed... green beans self-roasted, ground right after and used immediately do produce the best results. But the beans source doesn't matter all that much, more or less every "green bean" source I ever seen used was about the same in the end. On this part, it's basically just the roast method (time, speed). If you get freshly roasted beans from the shop and put it in an air-tight container, you won't lose any significant flavors for about a week or so.
Then, you have the granularity of the ground coffee. It depends on what do you use to actually make coffee... but for best flavor, the finest possible grind and the shortest water contact time will give you the most of the flavor. BOTH are a matter of taste, there's no such thing as "best".
BUT THAT'S ONLY HALF THE STORY. The other half is the water. The water source/quality is the vital one (you want the purest, tasteless water you can find, personally I prefer DISTILLED water). The "device" you use to heat it with matters a lot too (machine aftertaste SUCKS big time): keep it as clean as possible, clean shortly after every use.
How much time you keep the ground coffee in contact with the hot water, and how exactly do you do it, that's again just a matter of taste.
And last but not least, storage. NEVER reheat coffee. Never. If you drink coffee 10-15 minutes after it got cold, you'd better just throw it away anyway. __
But then, when you're in a big hurry, you couldn't give a damn, and even instant coffee sounds good about now:P
Well, they WOULDN'T ever release a real (or even mildly realistic) number of genuine Vista purchases (i.e. retail vs OEM), in no form whatsoever, because then: * we'd see that retail versions are not being sold much, and out of the sold ones, a significant percentage end up NOT being used much * we'd see that a vast majority of "licences sold" are actually OEM installs, and even those get "reverted" to XP or something else
I mean, WHO THE HELL, in his right mind, would willingly and permanently cripple his computer NOW, when: * they know the system is still unstable as fuck * they know the driver support sucks * basically, they hear that Vista sucks from everybody that has Vista and his firends * the only good reason to buy Vista was DX10, and THAT specific reason is (for better or worse) almost null and void nowadays, and might remain so
As for "promises made" vs "promises kept", pretty much each and every promise Microsoft made or at least implied it might have made has been broken to the Moon and back, and came back in a hellbasket to bite the user's nose off. Am I angry at Vista ? You BET. Why ? Because it DOES suck as much as everybody tells you it does.
Give it time to amass enough complaints, give it enough time to create huge outcries from people left and right, give it time to start getting replaced by alternatives that suddendly become appealing in comparison... basically, give it enough time so Redmond starts panicking due to overwhelming pressure, and ends up doing what it SHOULD have done since before launch day.
Sure, give it a year or two, THEN it might be worth buying. But not today, you fucking morons.
Vista : just say NO... everybody else does it anyway;)
Well, contrary to "nerdculture" beliefs, the way we play games LONG-TERM actually DOES reflect our personalities and even desires FOR MOST PEOPLE.
However, they don't reflect it directly, they don't reflect it for all people, and they certainly don't reflect it short-term. And it's a sad thing if "the ad servers" would take everything you do in a game literally, as you do it.
Like, for instance, if you explore the virtual world a lot, it certainly does NOT mean you like to travel in real-life. Sure, if the exploring in the game world would be purely optional, and you do it a lot even for "non-level-typical" spots, and there's no in-game incentive to go there other than looking at the pretty sights, then and only then COULD you conclude the person controlling the character likes to travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if only "being fat" actually equated with "being sick" most of the time, you'd have a point.
The BMI is an indication of how FAT you are, not how HEALTHY you are.
That being fat also means you are more prone to certain health problems is a different issue altogether.
First off, it's not even close to absolute zero.
Even far away from any GALAXIES, there's still a temperature of around 3 Kelvin.
Sure, pretty close to zero if you compare it with the 310 Kelvin of a normal human body.
However, temperature of an object so close to the Sun (1 AU) is hardly "deep space" 3 Kelvin, but more like 380-420 Kelvin (just look at the Moon's surface temperature) on the exposed surface (the one towards the Sun).
In order to FREEZE stuff, you need to siphon out the heat from the "stuff you want to freeze".
The less dense (well, caloric capacity, but it usually scales pretty well with density, with exceptions of course) the "cooler" matter is compared to the "hot" one you need cooled, the less of a cooling effect you get even if the temperature difference is the same.
That's why, for instance, you can sit naked on the beach on a chilly day and just get goosebumps, but if you go in the water you'll feel very cold (even if the water temp and the air temp is the same).
Space, being very close to a perfect vacuum, barely has any density at all (no, not even space is 0 bar), so no matter how "cold" or "hot" it might be, it won't make a serious dent in the temperature of an object FAST.
At this level of thermal contact (almost none), most of the temperature gain/loss is not from direct thermal contact, but by temperature (infrared) radiation, which is orders of magnitude smaller as you seem to think it is.
The reason why water DOES indeed freeze in space is the vacuum rather than the temperature, and it's the same reason why you sweat.
Water "absorbs" heat even if it keeps the same temperature when it evaporates (liquid->vapor), and water WILL evaporate as long as water vapor in the area is below a certain pressure. Water will also sublimate (ice->vapor) also "absorbing" heat in the process, but the rate of sublimation is much lower as that of evaporation.
You could freeze water even at high temperature, and on the surface of the Earth using this method.
Actually, there is something that could create an intense cooling right after "going into vacuum": the sweat on the surface of your skin.
Of course, the quantity of sweat won't cause serious freezing damage, but your skin will feel almost instantly much colder.
Water first evaporates, then partially sublimates in vacuum.
That's why you WILL get a shard/shaft of ice (or a spray of snowflakes, depending on nozzle used) if you eject water in space.
Ah, I see you Americans are barely getting used to the idea of what we Europeans call "Value Added Tax".
The fun part however (not in the "ha, ha, funny" way however) is that you'll probably get that AND THEN KEEP everything else in place too.
18.5 mil SP increasing 1.5 per month ;)
I really LOVE the skill system.
Diamonds are not a good investment... actually, not an investment at all.
"Honey, stop wasting our money". That's basically the gist of it.
"But you don't care about me if you don't buy me a diamond ring"... well, sorry babe, I expect a life partner WITH a functioning brain, able to process facts.
Gold ring, platinum ring, stuff like that, sure, why not.
But diamond rings? HELL NO. You won't see me buying something like that, ever.
Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy.
And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake.
The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.
Well, for starters, the title is hardly correct.
It shouldn't say "The Impossibility of Colonizing the Galaxy", it shoud actually say "The Economic Unfeasability of Colonizing the Galaxy, and the added Sociological Difficulties in Colonizing our Solarsystem".
That being said, I rest my case, because, well, I just said everything that needed to be said.
It has been hashed out and reached the wrong conclusion, several times over, and not only in the post you linked to.
It's the conversation that's providing the distraction, and it doesn't realy matter how you're carrying that conversation, only how much attention you're paying to the conversation as opposed to the road. The only mitigating factor in "conversation with a passenger" is that the passenger you are talking to MIGHT alert you to something you're missing while talking back, while the person you're having aphone conversation just can't possibly do that.
But then again, we're back at "how engaging the conversation is"... and that can be less engaging while talking on the phone ("uh-huh, yea, sure, honey, whatever you say, we'll talk more when I get back home") than a heated argument with somebody on the passenger seat ("what do you mean you're leaving me ? you @#$^#@#@!).
It doesn't matter where the distraction comes from, a phone conversation, a conversation with a passenger, you trying to adjust something (radio, air conditioning, CD player or anything else like that), eating something, reaching for something, anything at all that's causing you to divert attention from the actual driving... it's the PRESENCE of the distraction and its MAGNITUDE that's increasing accident chances, REGARDLESS of the source/type of your distraction.
"I fact, I think the test to get a Driver lisense should be substantially harder.
You must be able to drive on the freeway, you must be able to parellel park, you must have decent vision, you must have a decent refleesx, you must be able to hear, and you must be able to know how to behave at a 4 way stop,you must be able to read and understand road signs and you must demonstrate all that to someone giving you a test. Every 6 year until 50, then every 4 until 65, then every 2. You must pay for the test."
Hello, and welcome to Europe.
Well, not as harsh as you describe it, and not in each and every country, but you got the general idea right.
And before you tell me to RTFA linked in the grandparent post, I *HAVE* read the article.
Notice how their test DIDN'T include in their actual test phase a "passenger conversation" experiment phase at all.
Also, the difference between hands-free sets and normal sets were minimal... but then again the experiment only required one hand, not two (and most non-US cars are driven with two hands, not one).
I could go to lengthy detail in pointing out further defficiencies in their procedure (so the experiment is close to meaningless for real-life situations), about the insignificant increase in "miss rates" and so on and so forth, but I don't really have to.
So, why don't I have to ?
Because their own CONCLUSION was that the CONVERSATION itself provided the distraction, as opposed to doing nothing, listening to the radio or a book on tape.
In other words, talking to a passenger or talking on the phone is equally distracting and accident-prone.
So what's next, forbidding the driver from talking to the passengers ?
Because, in case you are using a hands-free set while talking on the phone, it's not any different from talking to somebody else in the car.
They sold relatively well on DVD and other non-cinema media.
They more than made back their budged, every last one of them.
Sadly.
Wiretaps *ARE* illegal unless authorised under "probable cause".
The FISA ('78) was the only one offering some leeway in how wiretapping could be conducted OUTSIDE of "regular" law enforcement prior to 9/11.
And then, there's the "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" shortly afterwards.
Quoting wikipedia on that:
"The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained the following civil liberties protections ("Safeguards"):
[...]
* Requiring Additional Specificity from an Applicant Before Roving Surveillance May be Authorized: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness in applications for roving wiretaps in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity in these applications in order for a FISA Court judge to consider authorizing a roving wiretap.
* Requiring Court Notification Within 10 Days of Conducting Surveillance on a New Facility Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns the roving wiretap authority could be abused by requiring the investigators to inform the FISA Court within 10 days when the roving surveillance authority is used to target a new facility.
* Requiring Ongoing FISA Court Notification of the Total Number of Places or Facilities Under Surveillance Using a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report enhances judicial oversight to address any concerns that the roving wiretap authority could be abused. Specifically, the conference report requires the FISA Court to be informed on an ongoing basis of the total number of places or facilities under surveillance using a roving wiretap authority.
* Requiring Additional Specificity in a FISA Court Judges Order Authorizing a Roving Wiretap: The USA PATRIOT Act conference report addresses concerns about vagueness about the target in a FISA Court judges order authorizing a roving wiretap in foreign spying and terrorism investigations by requiring additional specificity."
Basically, it's no question that the wiretaps are legal or illegal, they were obviously and intentionally abusing a PROBABLE legal grey area in between, exploiting weaknesses in the promulgated legislation.
With this, the legislators try to FINALLY DEEM IT ILLEGAL FOR GOOD, to eliminate all probable legal uncertainties regarding them that MIGHT have been exploited to CLAIM they are legal in the first place.
One more thing to add in the "only in America" list of things: "Only in America, you need to pass a new law deeming something already illegal to be actually illegal".
Well, it's Mars, not Venus, so it's can't be anything else :P
Obligatory Soviet Russia revefence...
...well, audit, whatever, same thing ;)
In EVE-Online, players control YOU !
Nonono, you got it ALL WRONG !
;)
It's actually... *drumroll*...
I, for one, welcome our new CARE-bear overlords
Stuff that hasn't been "done" to death yet:
* First Person Clubber : a prehistoric combat game for control of a cave network
* a game where the hero must stop the forces of Heaven from invading Earth : take that, fluffy angels !
* we're invading an alien planet and ONOES we forgot the activation keys home, so nuking the site from orbit is not an option : slaughter all helpless life on the planet to make space for humankind
* a reenactment of the Vietnam war : we know you hate being reminded of it, but nobody's done it before so hey, dibs on it
Hooray for innovative concepts !
Wonder which one he'll be picking...
I could guess the only other building that even comes close is in Romania, Bucharest... namely, the building formerly known as "Casa Poporului" ("house of the people"). It was one of the most megalomaniac projects of former "Socialist Republic of Romania" Communist party leader Nicolae Ceausescu.
The answer to your "real question" (and quite coincidentally also the answer to your "second complaint") is actually quite simple.
Simple, but not pleasant, in the end.
The answer is that "an innocent has nothing to fear if he's being watched".
The innocent would actually WANT to be watched permanently, so that his innocence can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But then again, one would have to have complete faith in the government, that the government's view on what's innocent vs what's criminal is the same as each person's own viewpoint on the matter.
Also, one would have to assume the government is actually benevolent, or even forgiving, which, to put it mildly, it's almost never the case.
Bottom line is that people never trust their governments fully.
The amount of trust people actually have in their government will reflect the amount of intrusion they'll wilfully accept (or rather said, tolerate) in their lives.
The two possible extremes are, on one side anarchy (every man is his own master, and you fully trust yourself but nobody else) and at the opposite end of the spectrum, a perfect, true democracy, where each person's actual desires and needs are taken into account fully and according to that person's true value for the well-being of society, and everybody knows (or has the means to know) absolutely everything anybody else has ever done or is doing right now.
None of those are acceptable answers for our day and age, for more or less obvious reasons, so we have no choice but to accept the fact a compromise must be made.
Where exactly on the scale the compromise lies, will always depend on the "wisdom" of the general population on one side, and economic/technological level on the other.
Disclaimers:
/. or somewhere else regarding the rapidly increasing (both technologically and numerically) public places surveillance network... the "irk" was with the so-called "privacy concerns".
* this is not necessarily directed at the OP
* I don't live in the US, I don't live in the UK
* this is not a political comment
Now, this one bit always irked me badly whenever I would see something on
HOW THE HELL does one manage to get "PUBLIC places surveillance" and "PRIVACY concerns" in the same sentence, refering to the same issue, without literally imploding from sheer vacuum in their cranial cavity ?
It's a PUBLIC place, forgodssake, you are NOT EXPECTED to get ANY KIND OF PRIVACY in a freaking public place, dammit !
Moreso, it would be advisable to have absolutely ZERO privacy in ANY public place, and that for each and every individual in a public place.
Want privacy, go home, or rent a room, or sit in a cabin, or any other PRIVATE place, where you CAN have your privacy.
Now, would they be talking about surveillance cameras/microphones in your home, or blanket wiretaps on your phones, or any other intrusion in your privacy, well, THAT would be too much. Or, maybe if they were talking about cameras that can see through your clothes (as if, but you never know), or about powerful directional microphones capable of catching up a whisper, or about cameras with high enough definition and FPS so that they could lip-read from you... THAT would also be borderline invasive (even in public, you can create a semblance of privacy by, say, sitting at a table at a cafe, for instance).
Newsflash, UK ain't worse off with regards to privacy concerns.
Oh, well, sorry for the yelling, and in the end, it did get somewhat political, but still, the core argument remains.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIVACY IN PUBLIC, PERIOD
I love it how people say it's all about the coffeeeeeeeeee beans, and how you roast them, or it's all about the method and yada yada yada and forget a lot of othert important factors.
:P
To be honest, indeed... green beans self-roasted, ground right after and used immediately do produce the best results.
But the beans source doesn't matter all that much, more or less every "green bean" source I ever seen used was about the same in the end.
On this part, it's basically just the roast method (time, speed).
If you get freshly roasted beans from the shop and put it in an air-tight container, you won't lose any significant flavors for about a week or so.
Then, you have the granularity of the ground coffee.
It depends on what do you use to actually make coffee... but for best flavor, the finest possible grind and the shortest water contact time will give you the most of the flavor.
BOTH are a matter of taste, there's no such thing as "best".
BUT THAT'S ONLY HALF THE STORY.
The other half is the water.
The water source/quality is the vital one (you want the purest, tasteless water you can find, personally I prefer DISTILLED water).
The "device" you use to heat it with matters a lot too (machine aftertaste SUCKS big time): keep it as clean as possible, clean shortly after every use.
How much time you keep the ground coffee in contact with the hot water, and how exactly do you do it, that's again just a matter of taste.
And last but not least, storage.
NEVER reheat coffee. Never.
If you drink coffee 10-15 minutes after it got cold, you'd better just throw it away anyway.
__
But then, when you're in a big hurry, you couldn't give a damn, and even instant coffee sounds good about now
Well, they WOULDN'T ever release a real (or even mildly realistic) number of genuine Vista purchases (i.e. retail vs OEM), in no form whatsoever, because then:
;)
* we'd see that retail versions are not being sold much, and out of the sold ones, a significant percentage end up NOT being used much
* we'd see that a vast majority of "licences sold" are actually OEM installs, and even those get "reverted" to XP or something else
I mean, WHO THE HELL, in his right mind, would willingly and permanently cripple his computer NOW, when:
* they know the system is still unstable as fuck
* they know the driver support sucks
* basically, they hear that Vista sucks from everybody that has Vista and his firends
* the only good reason to buy Vista was DX10, and THAT specific reason is (for better or worse) almost null and void nowadays, and might remain so
As for "promises made" vs "promises kept", pretty much each and every promise Microsoft made or at least implied it might have made has been broken to the Moon and back, and came back in a hellbasket to bite the user's nose off. Am I angry at Vista ? You BET. Why ? Because it DOES suck as much as everybody tells you it does.
Give it time to amass enough complaints, give it enough time to create huge outcries from people left and right, give it time to start getting replaced by alternatives that suddendly become appealing in comparison... basically, give it enough time so Redmond starts panicking due to overwhelming pressure, and ends up doing what it SHOULD have done since before launch day.
Sure, give it a year or two, THEN it might be worth buying.
But not today, you fucking morons.
Vista : just say NO... everybody else does it anyway
Excuse me ?
Mac OS X *can* run on x86s... not all, and it needs a bit of "hacking".
It DOES however run on non-Apple hardware if you insist.
Well, contrary to "nerdculture" beliefs, the way we play games LONG-TERM actually DOES reflect our personalities and even desires FOR MOST PEOPLE.
However, they don't reflect it directly, they don't reflect it for all people, and they certainly don't reflect it short-term.
And it's a sad thing if "the ad servers" would take everything you do in a game literally, as you do it.
Like, for instance, if you explore the virtual world a lot, it certainly does NOT mean you like to travel in real-life.
Sure, if the exploring in the game world would be purely optional, and you do it a lot even for "non-level-typical" spots, and there's no in-game incentive to go there other than looking at the pretty sights, then and only then COULD you conclude the person controlling the character likes to travel.