Wow. So a game that actively encourages random acts of violence, but discourages drunk driving, is targeted by MADD?
Of course, as usual, this just means that they have not played the game, nor do they know anything about the game beyond the second-hand statement "it is possible to drive drunk in the game". If they actually had bothered to learn about the actual game before issuing a press release, they might have come out for a game that encourages responsibility in driving.
But really, I don't expect anything like rationality from these kinds of organizations, MADD in particular.
I don't understand what makes it a "fundamental" part of a circuit, while say a diode or MOSFET isn't. You can't make a transistor out of resistors, capacitors, and inductors... That's why it always showed up as the magical "voltage-controlled current source" in entry-level circuit analysis courses. I thought the three classic "basic" elements were because they were just the simplest.
Or maybe they're "basic" because every circuit (that's not superconducting), whether or not it contains semiconductors or more exotic stuff, has some amount resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Even if you don't want it, in which case you call it "parasitic". I don't think you're going to accidentally create two separate layers of titanium oxide.
So while I get why this discovery is totally awesome, I don't get what they mean by "fourth fundamental circuit element". Anyone got the skinny?
(Such amazing IQ swings we see. Genius! Moronic! Brilliant! Ape-like! Bing-bam-boom! Sometimes several flip-flops in one day! One would almost wonder if the problem lies in the observers, rather than the observed.)
The problem lies in this ridiculous line of thinking where someone can only ever have one adjective applied, and that adjective must apply to everything they do.
Here's the dope: The Bush White House is quite adept at playing politics -- genius when Rove was involved -- including yes the ability to make apparent incompetence into a strength. They are skilled at making the organizations they control work for them, producing the information they want to hear, and failing to find or losing the information they don't want anyone to hear, to support their political goals. When it comes to actually executing policies outside of Washington, they're terrible failures because in reality you can't get rid of facts you don't like and keep only the ones you do.
What's so contradictory about that? I'm "brilliant" with computers, I'm "moronic" with cars. To think that one precludes the other is idiotic. But then again, so is the whole "flip-flop" figure of speech.
He had a lawyer, but was too stupid to listen when his counsel said testifying was a bad idea. If you think about it, getting a lawyer but then not taking their advice is even dumber than not getting a lawyer at all.
If "shutting up" would prove a potential murderer not guilty, something is seriously wrong with how things are handled.
It's not so much that it would have proven him not guilty, as it would have allowed for the "reasonable doubt" which the jury must find the evidence to be beyond before rendering a guilty verdict for murder.
Our judicial system, at least theoretically, isn't as much concerned with ensuring that the guilty are convicted as ensuring that the innocent go free. That's the whole reason for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That's also the reason for eliminating evidence based on how it was acquired, in order to protect the rights of the everyone. Imagine if illegally obtained evidence was admissible. Cops would be kicking down doors at random hoping to find evidence of a crime. Or planting evidence at will. Your rights, the rights of the innocent, would be destroyed.
There was a bunch of circumstantial evidence -- as much as I've seen plenty of other convictions based on -- but the jury may not have found against him. But when he testified, he added another piece of evidence for the jury to consider: Hans Reiser's explanation for all of the circumstantial evidence is completely unbelievable. Throw lying on top of everything else, and the jury no longer had reasonable doubt.
So yes, him keeping his silly trap shut would have possibly allowed him to go free. If you assume the guilty verdict is correct, then it seems that but for his own stupidity, a murderer would have walked free. Yet the alternative -- to force defendants to testify -- is even worse, when you think of the impact it would have on the innocent.
Yes, exactly, the problem was that Reiser eliminated doubt. All that was left was the simple question: Was his testimony credible? Well, based solely on the few snippets in the article, it doesn't sound credible at all. Sitting through 11 days of that, and I can see being completely convinced he was lying his ass off. And that's being me, knowing full well how weird, paranoid, and asocial geeks can be.
The thing is, that while there was only circumstantial evidence, there was rather a lot of it. That amount of evidence is used to convict people plenty often. You don't have to have a body, a gun with fingerprints on it, and ballistics that match the bullet in the body. "Circumstantial" blood stains require either a lot of good explaining, or a lot of shutting up and leaving room for the "reasonable doubt" that your lawyer will certainly argue for. When you try to explain it away, and your explanations sound hollow, then that only leaves the interpretation that you are lying because the circumstantial evidence is real evidence.
There's a good lesson here: Listen to your lawyer. If your lawyer says it would be a bad idea for you to testify, it's probably because they know what they are talking about. It's very much a geek thing to want to address every point made by your opponent directly, to leave nothing left unaccounted for. Except that when your rebuttals are weak, you can actually have the opposite effect. Let your lawyer figure out when that is appropriate.
So you may be right, it probably won't matter to the child who receives one (at least at first anyway). I think it will matter to many of those who have been supporting the project with contributions of funds, open source software and creative commons content.
Obviously I think it matters; you missed my point by a zillion miles if you even suspected otherwise.
Then you admit that the only purpose of the OLPC project was to further the spread of your particular brand of open source evangelism, and the kids education be damned ?
No, they're saying that the kids education will be damned if we allow it to be dictated by Microsoft.
Go ahead and disagree that locking kids into MS will ultimately harm their education. But to say that it is all about OSS evangelism and has nothing to do with the kids, even though the entire argument is phrased in terms of how the MS monopoly will harm the kids while OSS can empower them, is just thick-headed.
Which means this is the first true, actual, working, 100% correct terrorist detector. Just irradiate someone with Thorium, and if they die, they weren't a terrorist.
Note that a terrorist can become ill from thorium, so it is not sufficient to administer a sub-lethal dose. Only death proves that someone is innocent.
Why should it matter to some poor kid if their textbooks are accurate, or if their laptop is a method to lock them in to a commercial relationship rather than a way to bootstrap local computer knowledge? Surely the kid won't know the difference or care?
We don't base such decisions on what a child feels is important; if we did, we'd be giving them $100 of candy instead of laptops.
She's got a real bun in the oven now though, so maybe she'll get over this faze, but the whole point of this is: if I can spend 10 dollars to make her happy until we have to take care of a real spore, I'll take it.
Yeah, I say go for it. She's probably going to be disappointed with the "real bun" when she finds out that it isn't very customizable -- you can dress it and style the hair, but things like skin color, sex, and number of limbs are all more or less fixed.
To me the funny part is if you're going to cheat like that, you could pretty easily beat that record time just by throwing a frisbee off a very tall cliff. Being limited by the size of the station is the problem, I'm guessing. What they need to do is suit up and go outside the station, then throw the frisbee. I bet it would be possible to keep the frisbee "aloft" for at least a couple weeks then.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. So a game that actively encourages random acts of violence, but discourages drunk driving, is targeted by MADD?
Of course, as usual, this just means that they have not played the game, nor do they know anything about the game beyond the second-hand statement "it is possible to drive drunk in the game". If they actually had bothered to learn about the actual game before issuing a press release, they might have come out for a game that encourages responsibility in driving.
But really, I don't expect anything like rationality from these kinds of organizations, MADD in particular.
That's a good explanation that ties together what I already knew about RLC circuits with the piece that was missing, thank you.
Well I could blab about it all I wanted and there's still little chance of a girl finding out, so I think you're safe.
Ah, well that makes sense then.
The only thing covered by Ohm's Law is the resistor, that being the "R" in V = iR.
For capacitors the equivalent law is i = C (dV/dt), and for inductors it's V = L (di/dt).
You can combine them all for an RLC circuit, but the result isn't Ohm's law.
I don't understand what makes it a "fundamental" part of a circuit, while say a diode or MOSFET isn't. You can't make a transistor out of resistors, capacitors, and inductors... That's why it always showed up as the magical "voltage-controlled current source" in entry-level circuit analysis courses. I thought the three classic "basic" elements were because they were just the simplest.
Or maybe they're "basic" because every circuit (that's not superconducting), whether or not it contains semiconductors or more exotic stuff, has some amount resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Even if you don't want it, in which case you call it "parasitic". I don't think you're going to accidentally create two separate layers of titanium oxide.
So while I get why this discovery is totally awesome, I don't get what they mean by "fourth fundamental circuit element". Anyone got the skinny?
(Such amazing IQ swings we see. Genius! Moronic! Brilliant! Ape-like! Bing-bam-boom! Sometimes several flip-flops in one day! One would almost wonder if the problem lies in the observers, rather than the observed.)
The problem lies in this ridiculous line of thinking where someone can only ever have one adjective applied, and that adjective must apply to everything they do.
Here's the dope: The Bush White House is quite adept at playing politics -- genius when Rove was involved -- including yes the ability to make apparent incompetence into a strength. They are skilled at making the organizations they control work for them, producing the information they want to hear, and failing to find or losing the information they don't want anyone to hear, to support their political goals. When it comes to actually executing policies outside of Washington, they're terrible failures because in reality you can't get rid of facts you don't like and keep only the ones you do.
What's so contradictory about that? I'm "brilliant" with computers, I'm "moronic" with cars. To think that one precludes the other is idiotic. But then again, so is the whole "flip-flop" figure of speech.
He had a lawyer, but was too stupid to listen when his counsel said testifying was a bad idea. If you think about it, getting a lawyer but then not taking their advice is even dumber than not getting a lawyer at all.
I'd like it if people took home another good lesson: don't kill. Simple as that.
As if anyone who needed that lesson would learn it from reading about this case.
The legal aspect is at least useful if you should ever be accused of something.
And I thought the lesson was "don't kill people"... Silly me...
;)
Ha ha ha! Oh, that's a good one.
Well if you're in court then you already have a lawyer in which case you should already have proceeded to step 3, SHUT UP.
WHO IS THE COMPLAINANT?
The State. This is a criminal case, not civil. HAND.
If "shutting up" would prove a potential murderer not guilty, something is seriously wrong with how things are handled.
It's not so much that it would have proven him not guilty, as it would have allowed for the "reasonable doubt" which the jury must find the evidence to be beyond before rendering a guilty verdict for murder.
Our judicial system, at least theoretically, isn't as much concerned with ensuring that the guilty are convicted as ensuring that the innocent go free. That's the whole reason for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That's also the reason for eliminating evidence based on how it was acquired, in order to protect the rights of the everyone. Imagine if illegally obtained evidence was admissible. Cops would be kicking down doors at random hoping to find evidence of a crime. Or planting evidence at will. Your rights, the rights of the innocent, would be destroyed.
There was a bunch of circumstantial evidence -- as much as I've seen plenty of other convictions based on -- but the jury may not have found against him. But when he testified, he added another piece of evidence for the jury to consider: Hans Reiser's explanation for all of the circumstantial evidence is completely unbelievable. Throw lying on top of everything else, and the jury no longer had reasonable doubt.
So yes, him keeping his silly trap shut would have possibly allowed him to go free. If you assume the guilty verdict is correct, then it seems that but for his own stupidity, a murderer would have walked free. Yet the alternative -- to force defendants to testify -- is even worse, when you think of the impact it would have on the innocent.
Yes, exactly, the problem was that Reiser eliminated doubt. All that was left was the simple question: Was his testimony credible? Well, based solely on the few snippets in the article, it doesn't sound credible at all. Sitting through 11 days of that, and I can see being completely convinced he was lying his ass off. And that's being me, knowing full well how weird, paranoid, and asocial geeks can be.
The thing is, that while there was only circumstantial evidence, there was rather a lot of it. That amount of evidence is used to convict people plenty often. You don't have to have a body, a gun with fingerprints on it, and ballistics that match the bullet in the body. "Circumstantial" blood stains require either a lot of good explaining, or a lot of shutting up and leaving room for the "reasonable doubt" that your lawyer will certainly argue for. When you try to explain it away, and your explanations sound hollow, then that only leaves the interpretation that you are lying because the circumstantial evidence is real evidence.
There's a good lesson here: Listen to your lawyer. If your lawyer says it would be a bad idea for you to testify, it's probably because they know what they are talking about. It's very much a geek thing to want to address every point made by your opponent directly, to leave nothing left unaccounted for. Except that when your rebuttals are weak, you can actually have the opposite effect. Let your lawyer figure out when that is appropriate.
Yeah, just like Cave Bear is a clan.
Or my favorite version of the old saying: "If violence isn't solving your problems, then you're just not using enough of it."
So you may be right, it probably won't matter to the child who receives one (at least at first anyway). I think it will matter to many of those who have been supporting the project with contributions of funds, open source software and creative commons content.
Obviously I think it matters; you missed my point by a zillion miles if you even suspected otherwise.
Then you admit that the only purpose of the OLPC project was to further the spread of your particular brand of open source evangelism, and the kids education be damned ?
No, they're saying that the kids education will be damned if we allow it to be dictated by Microsoft.
Go ahead and disagree that locking kids into MS will ultimately harm their education. But to say that it is all about OSS evangelism and has nothing to do with the kids, even though the entire argument is phrased in terms of how the MS monopoly will harm the kids while OSS can empower them, is just thick-headed.
"Nuclear Proliferatingly Yours,
George W. Bush."
I don't believe it.
Which means this is the first true, actual, working, 100% correct terrorist detector. Just irradiate someone with Thorium, and if they die, they weren't a terrorist.
Note that a terrorist can become ill from thorium, so it is not sufficient to administer a sub-lethal dose. Only death proves that someone is innocent.
Why should it matter to some poor kid if their textbooks are accurate, or if their laptop is a method to lock them in to a commercial relationship rather than a way to bootstrap local computer knowledge? Surely the kid won't know the difference or care?
We don't base such decisions on what a child feels is important; if we did, we'd be giving them $100 of candy instead of laptops.
She's got a real bun in the oven now though, so maybe she'll get over this faze, but the whole point of this is: if I can spend 10 dollars to make her happy until we have to take care of a real spore, I'll take it.
Yeah, I say go for it. She's probably going to be disappointed with the "real bun" when she finds out that it isn't very customizable -- you can dress it and style the hair, but things like skin color, sex, and number of limbs are all more or less fixed.
To me the funny part is if you're going to cheat like that, you could pretty easily beat that record time just by throwing a frisbee off a very tall cliff. Being limited by the size of the station is the problem, I'm guessing. What they need to do is suit up and go outside the station, then throw the frisbee. I bet it would be possible to keep the frisbee "aloft" for at least a couple weeks then.
Yes, also obvious. Do you still not understand what they were saying?
Yes, and miners eat canaries.