You're wrong, that number is for real rapists. It's not for some expanded definition. It's based on written surveys of male college students (stastically extrapolated, of course) who were asked using a question that didn't use the word rape but instead asked if they'd ever physically or through the use if drugs forced an unwilling woman to have sex. The written survey was followed up with an intview to confirm the result. That number is actually just the ones who'd done it more than once (on average 6 times), one third of the rapists had only done it once. You should read up on it, this isn't feminist nonsense like you've assumed.
In reality, the number is not surprising since about 1 in 4 women are raped.
in the furure, please read any linked material before jumping to conclusions like that. Who knows how many people have gotten the wrong idea from reading your uninformed comment.
My understanding is that the FBI will work with the SEC by turning over relevant information and collaborating when possible, but generally will not duplicate work in order to prevent waste and other managerial problems.
"Law and order" attitudes are fine when the only people we imprison are murderers, rapists, etc. -- dangerous people who need to be separated from society to keep everyone else safe.
Fun fact: there are probably at least 6 million un-convicted rapists living in the US. The entire prison population is approximately 3 million.
Just because someone "admitted" guilt as part of a plea bargain doesn't mean they are actually guilty. Plea bargaining itself is a form of coercion, it's like putting a gun to someone's head and telling they you'll shoot them if they don't confess and give up their conspirators. Plenty of people have gone on to recant their pleas. The Norfolk Four is an example you may be aware of. Most sensible people realize that plea-bargaining for easy convictions is a deeply flawed way of getting "justice". It puts innocent people behind bars and gives guilty people lighter sentences.
It's unlikely that a 13 year old girl has the same expectations for sex as an 18 year old boy, and when two people's expectations are at odds someone is bound to get hurt. If you really believe it'd be ok to have sex with that girl, that's a big problem.
When I was 12, I would have given my left nut to have had sex with a 25 year old woman
And it wouldn't have been worth it. You had completely unreasonable expectations and the 25 year old would have been totally taking advantage of you.
I didn't pursue it because I preferred (and still prefer) older women
Have you ever noticed that you talk about having sex with women like you were shopping (I prefer red delicious apples)? This is exactly the kind of unhealthy attitude about sex I'm referring to. Eventually this way of thinking is going to get you into a lot of trouble (if it hasn't already).
That said, I don't agree with the sentiment that anyone doing these kinds of things should be brutally killed. Some who do it should be, but it's not that simple and it makes more sense to look at it on a case by case basis and make sure you're differentiating the true sociopaths from the people who are simply misguided like you.
Can't we throw these assholes in jail, or kill them or something, just to put an end to this madness? They obviously don't care at all how unpopular or harmful this legislation is, or else they would have given it up (what's this? their third attempt?).
Back then, infrastructure was build by hand from stones. It was much more expensive, and there were fewer people to build it as people spent most of their time producing food. It was basically the same situation we'd have if we eliminated fossil fuels today, moving was much harder because they didn't have machines to help them do it.
No article of the constitution grants law making or regulatory authority to any foreign power. How did you get that idea from the clause authorizing the president the to make treaties with the consent of congress? Are you insane?
Pardon me. War never looks good to an individual outside a hirearchial power structure. But of course, those in power do can use their authority to help convince people to go, by offering money and status and bullshit ideological arguments among other things. In my mind, people acting in such situations aren't really acting as individuals, but I can see how you might disagree. My point is, without that it's unlikely someone would decide to put their life on the line just so some rich person can gain even more wealth. And even with the perks, many people still will regret having gone to war (if they survive).
It's a risk vs. reward analysis. No one will start a war they expect to lose. But someone might organize a coup if they aren't completely sure they'll win, assuming they could get away and try again if they fail. That's the good thing about having other people fight your wars for you. And if you do decide to go to war because you think you can win, your enemy may still fight you even though he believes he can't win in the hopes he can negotiate terms. That's the beauty of being in charge, and that's why so many people fight for it.
If you're fighting a war for resources, you are fighting for an ideology. Not every culture on the earth believes in grabbing as much as possible for itself, or trying to build empires out of the other nations of the earth.
Wars pretty much happen because of scarcity of resources and imbalance of information.
No they don't. Wars happen because rulers want more power for themselves and individuals in a hierarchal authority structure have little ability to stand up to them and say "I won't die so you can have more land." And even though this is the case, there are countless examples of individuals who have stood up and done that, even though it cost them their life.
If you eliminate the mentality that people should do whatever an authority tells them, you will eliminate the possibility of war (among other things).
You'd have to rebuild society in a way that war would not occur because people would not be seeking the things that encourage people to go to war. You'd probably need to develop new language to de-emphasize the glory of conquest, acquisition of wealth, fame and things like that. You'd probably also need to get rid of top-down authoritative structures and place a lot more emphasis on the individual's responsibility in decision making, since war never looks good to the individual.
There are societies that are hard to imagine going to war, it's just that the people with the nukes don't belong to such societies.
Realistically, these kinds of changes would be necessary before we can go to space in any meaningful way. Technology that enables space travel is so powerful that making it easily available to everyone would practically guarantee a global nuclear war.
There's no doubt that it's huge. But would it mean the extinction of the human race? Or just the end of civilization? Maybe the survivors would be so war-weary they would rebuild in a way that no more wars would occur at all. In that case, if society continues for a long time after that the frequency of 1 nuclear ware ever might not be worse than business as usual. But there are so many assumptions that go into that. It'd be better if we started rebuilding society now.
Perhaps if we make many more movies about life in a post-apocayliptic wasteland, and nuclear war, and then show them to all our young children, but neglect to mention that none of it is actually real, they'll get the point better than we did.
1. A head-mounted display apparatus for a user, comprising: a first display operable to project a first image viewable only by a first eye of the user; a first peripheral light element positioned to emit light of one or more colors in close proximity to the periphery of the first display; a second display operable to project a second image viewable only by a second eye of the user independent of the first image viewed by the first eye of the user; a second peripheral light element positioned to emit light of one or more colors in close proximity to the periphery of the second display; and a processor operable to: receive data representing a source image; divide the source image into a left image and a right image; determine periphery colors for the left image and periphery colors for the right image; combine the left image and the determined periphery colors for the left image by directing the first peripheral light element to display the determined left image periphery colors only in a peripheral region of the first image; combine the right image and the determined periphery colors for the right image by directing the second peripheral light element to display the determined right image periphery colors only in a peripheral region of the second image; and project the combined left image only to the first display and the combined right image only to the second display to create an enhanced viewing experience for the user.
This clearly describes a device achieving the goal stated in the summary, and all the other claims have to do with implementing this device. I haven's seen any evidence this infringes on any military technology, and I assume the patent examiner didn't either.
Once we have a few global nuclear wars under our belt, we'll have a better idea of the overall destructiveness, as well as the frequency, and we'll be able to make a more meaningful comparison. This is hypothetical, of course, because it's unlikely someone would seriously consider that question after a full scale nuclear war had occurred.
I suppose it would be pretty bad to sue someone over a technology they hadn't put into anything yet. It would make them no better than a patent troll. People support Apple (financially) because they like Apple products. Nothing weird about that.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no idea what is being claimed here. Here is what the patent summary says:
The present invention provides methods and apparatus for treating the peripheral area of a user's field of view in a head mounted display, and thereby creating improved comfort and usability for head mounted displays. The peripheral area adjacent to the displayed image is treated, such that the peripheral area is coordinated with the image on the display. The coordination can be in the form of color projections, achieved, for example, by light emitting diodes (LEDs) or other displays, such that the colors surrounding the display dynamically matches what is shown on the display. As a result, the peripheral area “converges” with the display area, which reduces the “tunnel effect” or “box effect” experienced by the user. Various embodiments of the invention allow users to customize different viewing parameters of the head mounted displays to accommodate for variation in the individual users' eyes.
If you would actually read the patent you'd notice that Apple is well aware of other head mounted display technologies (they list them in the patent). As the title says, this is a "Peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays" to prevent motion sickness and increase the length of time such a device can be used.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong, that number is for real rapists. It's not for some expanded definition. It's based on written surveys of male college students (stastically extrapolated, of course) who were asked using a question that didn't use the word rape but instead asked if they'd ever physically or through the use if drugs forced an unwilling woman to have sex. The written survey was followed up with an intview to confirm the result. That number is actually just the ones who'd done it more than once (on average 6 times), one third of the rapists had only done it once. You should read up on it, this isn't feminist nonsense like you've assumed.
In reality, the number is not surprising since about 1 in 4 women are raped.
in the furure, please read any linked material before jumping to conclusions like that. Who knows how many people have gotten the wrong idea from reading your uninformed comment.
My understanding is that the FBI will work with the SEC by turning over relevant information and collaborating when possible, but generally will not duplicate work in order to prevent waste and other managerial problems.
Fun fact: there are probably at least 6 million un-convicted rapists living in the US. The entire prison population is approximately 3 million.
Just because someone "admitted" guilt as part of a plea bargain doesn't mean they are actually guilty. Plea bargaining itself is a form of coercion, it's like putting a gun to someone's head and telling they you'll shoot them if they don't confess and give up their conspirators. Plenty of people have gone on to recant their pleas. The Norfolk Four is an example you may be aware of. Most sensible people realize that plea-bargaining for easy convictions is a deeply flawed way of getting "justice". It puts innocent people behind bars and gives guilty people lighter sentences.
Isn't this kind of fraud the realm of the SEC?
It's unlikely that a 13 year old girl has the same expectations for sex as an 18 year old boy, and when two people's expectations are at odds someone is bound to get hurt. If you really believe it'd be ok to have sex with that girl, that's a big problem.
And it wouldn't have been worth it. You had completely unreasonable expectations and the 25 year old would have been totally taking advantage of you.
Have you ever noticed that you talk about having sex with women like you were shopping (I prefer red delicious apples)? This is exactly the kind of unhealthy attitude about sex I'm referring to. Eventually this way of thinking is going to get you into a lot of trouble (if it hasn't already).
That said, I don't agree with the sentiment that anyone doing these kinds of things should be brutally killed. Some who do it should be, but it's not that simple and it makes more sense to look at it on a case by case basis and make sure you're differentiating the true sociopaths from the people who are simply misguided like you.
Each display you add encreases the complexity of the computations used in generating the image. So adding a fourth panel is not as easy as it seems.
They're the ones telling you how it is. Don't like it? Stop supporting this type of governance.
Can't we throw these assholes in jail, or kill them or something, just to put an end to this madness? They obviously don't care at all how unpopular or harmful this legislation is, or else they would have given it up (what's this? their third attempt?).
Back then, infrastructure was build by hand from stones. It was much more expensive, and there were fewer people to build it as people spent most of their time producing food. It was basically the same situation we'd have if we eliminated fossil fuels today, moving was much harder because they didn't have machines to help them do it.
Yes, clearly bureaucrats make better design decisions than actual engineers. Apple is the one in the distortion field, not you.
It is possible to remove a glued on component. Glue does not actually form an eternal bond.
I don't get it. What kind of modifications would you want to make to such a device?
No article of the constitution grants law making or regulatory authority to any foreign power. How did you get that idea from the clause authorizing the president the to make treaties with the consent of congress? Are you insane?
Pardon me. War never looks good to an individual outside a hirearchial power structure. But of course, those in power do can use their authority to help convince people to go, by offering money and status and bullshit ideological arguments among other things. In my mind, people acting in such situations aren't really acting as individuals, but I can see how you might disagree. My point is, without that it's unlikely someone would decide to put their life on the line just so some rich person can gain even more wealth. And even with the perks, many people still will regret having gone to war (if they survive).
It's a risk vs. reward analysis. No one will start a war they expect to lose. But someone might organize a coup if they aren't completely sure they'll win, assuming they could get away and try again if they fail. That's the good thing about having other people fight your wars for you. And if you do decide to go to war because you think you can win, your enemy may still fight you even though he believes he can't win in the hopes he can negotiate terms. That's the beauty of being in charge, and that's why so many people fight for it.
If you're fighting a war for resources, you are fighting for an ideology. Not every culture on the earth believes in grabbing as much as possible for itself, or trying to build empires out of the other nations of the earth.
A hierarchal command structure is necessary and sufficient. Wars will result regardless of any other factors, as leaders fight to gain power.
No they don't. Wars happen because rulers want more power for themselves and individuals in a hierarchal authority structure have little ability to stand up to them and say "I won't die so you can have more land." And even though this is the case, there are countless examples of individuals who have stood up and done that, even though it cost them their life.
If you eliminate the mentality that people should do whatever an authority tells them, you will eliminate the possibility of war (among other things).
You'd have to rebuild society in a way that war would not occur because people would not be seeking the things that encourage people to go to war. You'd probably need to develop new language to de-emphasize the glory of conquest, acquisition of wealth, fame and things like that. You'd probably also need to get rid of top-down authoritative structures and place a lot more emphasis on the individual's responsibility in decision making, since war never looks good to the individual.
There are societies that are hard to imagine going to war, it's just that the people with the nukes don't belong to such societies.
Realistically, these kinds of changes would be necessary before we can go to space in any meaningful way. Technology that enables space travel is so powerful that making it easily available to everyone would practically guarantee a global nuclear war.
There's no doubt that it's huge. But would it mean the extinction of the human race? Or just the end of civilization? Maybe the survivors would be so war-weary they would rebuild in a way that no more wars would occur at all. In that case, if society continues for a long time after that the frequency of 1 nuclear ware ever might not be worse than business as usual. But there are so many assumptions that go into that. It'd be better if we started rebuilding society now.
Perhaps if we make many more movies about life in a post-apocayliptic wasteland, and nuclear war, and then show them to all our young children, but neglect to mention that none of it is actually real, they'll get the point better than we did.
The first claim is:
This clearly describes a device achieving the goal stated in the summary, and all the other claims have to do with implementing this device. I haven's seen any evidence this infringes on any military technology, and I assume the patent examiner didn't either.
Once we have a few global nuclear wars under our belt, we'll have a better idea of the overall destructiveness, as well as the frequency, and we'll be able to make a more meaningful comparison. This is hypothetical, of course, because it's unlikely someone would seriously consider that question after a full scale nuclear war had occurred.
I suppose it would be pretty bad to sue someone over a technology they hadn't put into anything yet. It would make them no better than a patent troll. People support Apple (financially) because they like Apple products. Nothing weird about that.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no idea what is being claimed here. Here is what the patent summary says:
If you would actually read the patent you'd notice that Apple is well aware of other head mounted display technologies (they list them in the patent). As the title says, this is a "Peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays" to prevent motion sickness and increase the length of time such a device can be used.