Red Arrow manufactures natural smoke flavor by charring sawdust and capturing the aroma chemicals released into the air.
I especially like this line. Basically, they manufacture natural smoke flavor by burning stuff and capturing the smoke released into the air. And he presents this as a somehow unexpected, contrived method to bottle smoke flavor.
You are arguing that having evidence thrown out is a greater deterrent to a police officer than the loss of his job?
Not quite. MozeeToby is arguing the having evidence thrown out removes the incentive to break procedure. If there is no gain to breaking procedure (assuming the cop doesn't just think he'll get away with it), the mildest of deterrents (bad rep, in this case) will serve to prevent the action. This is subtly, but importantly, different than providing a deterrent larger than the incentive. It is very difficult to judge magnitude in matters that are so subjective, but zero is pretty easy to spot.
The god question is unscientific (and so impossible to disprove), and so not worthy of any attention
I understand your point, and agree with you to a large extent. I do have to disagree with this statement, however. Just b/c a question is unscientific does not render it unworthy of attention. It does make collaborative solutions much more difficult, if not impossible. Fortunately, I find that most of the important, non-scientific questions are quite personal and subjective, so I have no qualms rejecting others' input and feel no compunction to convince them of my solutions.
Anyone who thinks Colbert is just a media whore needs to see this clip of the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner
The man acts like a spoiled brat; that's his schtick. But he is a fearless satirist.
I think the PG-13 came in large part from the lack of sex. That always triggers the ratings. Plus, despite the implied grotesque violence, the only depicted violence was rather sanitized. I mean, sure, Batman would hurl a man into a steel beam with great force, but The Dark Knight didn't show his shattered bones and ruptured soft tissues. Watchmen did.
What the hell does that have to do with schema normalization? Normalization has to do with how you architect your tables and relations.
Right. And say I have two lookup tables for, say, county codes. One has county name and FIPS code, one has county name and internal county code. This is denormalization of data (braindead denormalization, if you ask me. which they didn't). And say one of them spells county name one way, and the other another. This is destandardization. However, it is only possible b/c of the denormalization.
I wish more people explicitly understood this. Too often, people make the implicit assumption that if we can utilize a scientific principle sufficiently to make useful technology based on it, then we must understand the scientific principle. The fact that I can build a working trebuchet doesn't imply that I understand gravity to any great degree.
Huh? Growth is change. If we grow, we have become different, i.e. changed. As for free will, I would say you have it backwards. Free will ONLY exists within time, where there is the potential for change. All possible avenues for growth exists, decision is the mechanism by which we traverse these branches of existence. All choices are subject to influence, and limited by past choices; that in no way implies that there does not exist any choice. If we don't even understand the nature of space and time, which we can observe, why make the assumption that either there is nothing we can't currently observe or that it has no influence we can't account for? The common rebuttal is b/c logic and science don't encompass anything unobservable, which is very circular. We developed our philosophies of logic and science to specifically help us understand that which we observe; the fact that they are very very good at that does not imply that anything they are not suitable for must not exist.
I once fell out with a friend because I refused to accept Anastoff as the sole inventor of the computer.
I'm sorry, you fell out with a friend over a disagreement about who should truly be credited with inventing the computer? What's that word again, the one where your incredulous awe battles with your dismayed pity?
The view that individuals never actually deserve to have more than others, that they just grab an unfair cut from a collectively-owned pool of "resources", is really just hatred of others for being successful.
I wouldn't say never, but if you study history, human nature, current events, any one of many many different fields, you come to the unmistakable conclusion that the majority of "successful" individuals got that way through behavior that is considered repugnant by mainstream standards. Your standards may vary, and "deserve" is an almost meaningless word, but I don't think resenting the methods most successful people use to gain their success is at all the same as "hating their success".
and in a random search someone should find any viable solution), and thus never come down with *any* flu strain ever again. That's not what we see though
See, I wonder how they can pretend to know that hasn't happened. I've never gotten the flu; I get shots every year. Is it the shots every year, am I just lucky, or do I have universal immunity? No one has ever studied me, so no one really knows. How many people are out there like me? It's not like people bring themselves to the attention of the medical industry by not getting the flu...
Very possibly was a bad attorney - no one ever brought up the idea of me testifying. Of course, I was 15 or 16, my friend slightly older. And my friend already had a record for minor mischief, I think even a previous possession charge (I'm not sure about that, though). As you say, our word against the cop's? Unlikely to be persuasive.
And of course, the whole "bad attorney" thing is something else that casts doubt on the fairness of our judicial system. Poor? Get the overworked, unlikely to be top of his class public defender. Rich? Get the well-connected, well bona-fide attorney. When economic status plays an undeniable role in conviction probability, something smells a little funny.
I recall Lawrence Watt-Evans doing something similar to what you propose. His fans wanted him to write another novel based in a popular world he had created (The Ethshar series, I believe it was). So he wrote a chapter, posted it online, and said he would write another chapter once he had received $100 (or whatever it was) in donations. He did this for each chapter (or two; again, fuzzy on the details), each time saying he would write the next chapter after he had received some fixed amount of donations. As I recall, it was successful enough that he finished writing the book and did it again for a second novel.
Aha! Found it
While you certainly have the legal right to refuse a search of your car, I have to question the value of this right when your practical right to refuse doesn't actually exist. Let me explain. I have been in a friend's car when we were pulled over. This was a smallish town, my friend definitely had a record of petty trouble, I assume the cop recognized him or the plates came back with a note or something. Anyway, cop asked if he could search the car, my friend says "No." Cop reaches into his pocket, pulls out a pack of cigarette rolling papers, says "Sir, seeing this in your glove compartment gives me probable cause to search. Please step out of the car." Of course my friend complains, but in the end, we obey the man with the gun. He searches, finds a relatively small amount of pot, arrests my friend (this was back before they would just write a ticket for small amounts). I was clean, so the cop let me drive my friend's car home (didn't hurt that I had a good reputation in the town, I'm sure).
And yes, my friend was tried and convicted of minor possession. I wasn't at the trial, but I assume my friend at least told his lawyer what actually happened. And either the lawyer decided it was useless to present in court, or the court ignored it when he did. Not to mention the fact that apparently, the court found possessing a completely legal substance that can be used in illegal acts to be probable cause.
I realize that one example of a corrupt officer doesn't invalidate our entire justice system, but it does illustrate a justified reason people might not have any faith in that system. Legal protections are no better (nor worse) than the people that enforce them. If you can not practically refuse a search, it doesn't really matter what the law says.
Income taxes, because he didn't declare his illegal wealth. They couldn't prove the wealth was ill-gotten, but they prove it was gotten and not declared. That is not at all the same thing as being charged with tax-evasion b/c you didn't pay the tax on the item you stole. I'm pretty sure if "they" (DAs) thought they could make that charge stick, they would tack that onto the theft charges.
Pull out the corkscrew (generally extends perpendicular to handle) and use the knife as "brass knuckles". Adds a bit of ouch to your punch, plus the ouch of the sharp pointy. You know, next time you find yourself in a life or death situation with nothing but your Swiss Army knife at hand. Man, I hate Tuesdays.
Neither do camera phones. Which actually does bring up an interesting question: what about the phones that can film, as opposed to single frame photography? Constant clicking?
Even if we are all "Nicey Nicey" some people will STILL hate us. And they will STILL try to blow shit up because of that hatred. Liberals can never understand this, which is why they are perpetual victims.
If no matter what we do, people are gonna try to blow us up (or do you really think we can imprison everyone who hates us?), then it doesn't really matter what political beliefs we have, does it? We are all still victims of people trying to blow our shit up. If you want to ignore the moral implications of our actions, then the practical consideration becomes: which leads to more people at large that hate us enough to try to blow shit up, imprisoning everyone suspected of this sentiment or being nice. One way leads to a large number of people hating us, with a large number of people imprisoned for suspicion of hating us. The disjoint between these sets is the number of people at large that hate us. The other way leads to a smaller number of people that hate us, with none of them (not necessarily true, but an assumption for the sake of argument) being imprisoned. Given that we have never tried the second approach, there is no real evidence which way leads to fewer at large people that hate us. There is a large amount of evidence that one is materially more expensive than the other.
I don't think it's political correctness to refrain from generalizing an entire state of people negatively. It's just common sense; that tiny little state (ranked 26th in population, so I would suggest medium sized) has over 4 million people. You really find it intellectually honest to lump 4 million people into a single stereotype?
I think you have legitimate concerns, and make a good point about someone buying up compilations of self-created underage porn probably deserving some sort of charges. In your other post, I would say the dad that shared the photos with his friends, even if it really was just for a laugh, is at best a moron who deserves to be legally slapped somehow. But that is assuming he is a grown man. I just find it hard to reconcile a body of law that says it is OK for this person to have sex with this other person, but it is not OK for the exact same person to have a nude photo of the that same other person. Somewhere, there is an obvious disconnect that needs to be addressed. Adding complexities into it such as the current situation calls for certainly makes it more difficult to police, making it more likely that someone guilty will go free. However, I think not acknowledging those complexities will ensure that many many more "innocent" people will be ruined over this.
Slashdot Mirror
Something smells fowl about that joke.
Off topic, the internet would be a much nicer place if all disagreements were presumed to be respectful until obviously indicated otherwise..
So would the local bar, my office, the world...
Red Arrow manufactures natural smoke flavor by charring sawdust and capturing the aroma chemicals released into the air.
I especially like this line. Basically, they manufacture natural smoke flavor by burning stuff and capturing the smoke released into the air. And he presents this as a somehow unexpected, contrived method to bottle smoke flavor.
You are arguing that having evidence thrown out is a greater deterrent to a police officer than the loss of his job?
Not quite. MozeeToby is arguing the having evidence thrown out removes the incentive to break procedure. If there is no gain to breaking procedure (assuming the cop doesn't just think he'll get away with it), the mildest of deterrents (bad rep, in this case) will serve to prevent the action. This is subtly, but importantly, different than providing a deterrent larger than the incentive. It is very difficult to judge magnitude in matters that are so subjective, but zero is pretty easy to spot.
The god question is unscientific (and so impossible to disprove), and so not worthy of any attention
I understand your point, and agree with you to a large extent. I do have to disagree with this statement, however. Just b/c a question is unscientific does not render it unworthy of attention. It does make collaborative solutions much more difficult, if not impossible. Fortunately, I find that most of the important, non-scientific questions are quite personal and subjective, so I have no qualms rejecting others' input and feel no compunction to convince them of my solutions.
Anyone who thinks Colbert is just a media whore needs to see this clip of the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner
The man acts like a spoiled brat; that's his schtick. But he is a fearless satirist.
I think the PG-13 came in large part from the lack of sex. That always triggers the ratings. Plus, despite the implied grotesque violence, the only depicted violence was rather sanitized. I mean, sure, Batman would hurl a man into a steel beam with great force, but The Dark Knight didn't show his shattered bones and ruptured soft tissues. Watchmen did.
What the hell does that have to do with schema normalization? Normalization has to do with how you architect your tables and relations.
Right. And say I have two lookup tables for, say, county codes. One has county name and FIPS code, one has county name and internal county code. This is denormalization of data (braindead denormalization, if you ask me. which they didn't). And say one of them spells county name one way, and the other another. This is destandardization. However, it is only possible b/c of the denormalization.
I wish more people explicitly understood this. Too often, people make the implicit assumption that if we can utilize a scientific principle sufficiently to make useful technology based on it, then we must understand the scientific principle. The fact that I can build a working trebuchet doesn't imply that I understand gravity to any great degree.
We are not changing. We are growing.
Huh? Growth is change. If we grow, we have become different, i.e. changed. As for free will, I would say you have it backwards. Free will ONLY exists within time, where there is the potential for change. All possible avenues for growth exists, decision is the mechanism by which we traverse these branches of existence. All choices are subject to influence, and limited by past choices; that in no way implies that there does not exist any choice. If we don't even understand the nature of space and time, which we can observe, why make the assumption that either there is nothing we can't currently observe or that it has no influence we can't account for? The common rebuttal is b/c logic and science don't encompass anything unobservable, which is very circular. We developed our philosophies of logic and science to specifically help us understand that which we observe; the fact that they are very very good at that does not imply that anything they are not suitable for must not exist.
I once fell out with a friend because I refused to accept Anastoff as the sole inventor of the computer.
I'm sorry, you fell out with a friend over a disagreement about who should truly be credited with inventing the computer? What's that word again, the one where your incredulous awe battles with your dismayed pity?
Excellent post, IgnormausMaximus. That is exactly the point, stated much better than I have ever managed. Thank you.
The view that individuals never actually deserve to have more than others, that they just grab an unfair cut from a collectively-owned pool of "resources", is really just hatred of others for being successful.
I wouldn't say never, but if you study history, human nature, current events, any one of many many different fields, you come to the unmistakable conclusion that the majority of "successful" individuals got that way through behavior that is considered repugnant by mainstream standards. Your standards may vary, and "deserve" is an almost meaningless word, but I don't think resenting the methods most successful people use to gain their success is at all the same as "hating their success".
and in a random search someone should find any viable solution), and thus never come down with *any* flu strain ever again. That's not what we see though
See, I wonder how they can pretend to know that hasn't happened. I've never gotten the flu; I get shots every year. Is it the shots every year, am I just lucky, or do I have universal immunity? No one has ever studied me, so no one really knows. How many people are out there like me? It's not like people bring themselves to the attention of the medical industry by not getting the flu...
Very possibly was a bad attorney - no one ever brought up the idea of me testifying. Of course, I was 15 or 16, my friend slightly older. And my friend already had a record for minor mischief, I think even a previous possession charge (I'm not sure about that, though). As you say, our word against the cop's? Unlikely to be persuasive.
And of course, the whole "bad attorney" thing is something else that casts doubt on the fairness of our judicial system. Poor? Get the overworked, unlikely to be top of his class public defender. Rich? Get the well-connected, well bona-fide attorney. When economic status plays an undeniable role in conviction probability, something smells a little funny.
I recall Lawrence Watt-Evans doing something similar to what you propose. His fans wanted him to write another novel based in a popular world he had created (The Ethshar series, I believe it was). So he wrote a chapter, posted it online, and said he would write another chapter once he had received $100 (or whatever it was) in donations. He did this for each chapter (or two; again, fuzzy on the details), each time saying he would write the next chapter after he had received some fixed amount of donations. As I recall, it was successful enough that he finished writing the book and did it again for a second novel.
Aha! Found it
While you certainly have the legal right to refuse a search of your car, I have to question the value of this right when your practical right to refuse doesn't actually exist. Let me explain. I have been in a friend's car when we were pulled over. This was a smallish town, my friend definitely had a record of petty trouble, I assume the cop recognized him or the plates came back with a note or something. Anyway, cop asked if he could search the car, my friend says "No." Cop reaches into his pocket, pulls out a pack of cigarette rolling papers, says "Sir, seeing this in your glove compartment gives me probable cause to search. Please step out of the car." Of course my friend complains, but in the end, we obey the man with the gun. He searches, finds a relatively small amount of pot, arrests my friend (this was back before they would just write a ticket for small amounts). I was clean, so the cop let me drive my friend's car home (didn't hurt that I had a good reputation in the town, I'm sure).
And yes, my friend was tried and convicted of minor possession. I wasn't at the trial, but I assume my friend at least told his lawyer what actually happened. And either the lawyer decided it was useless to present in court, or the court ignored it when he did. Not to mention the fact that apparently, the court found possessing a completely legal substance that can be used in illegal acts to be probable cause.
I realize that one example of a corrupt officer doesn't invalidate our entire justice system, but it does illustrate a justified reason people might not have any faith in that system. Legal protections are no better (nor worse) than the people that enforce them. If you can not practically refuse a search, it doesn't really matter what the law says.
Income taxes, because he didn't declare his illegal wealth. They couldn't prove the wealth was ill-gotten, but they prove it was gotten and not declared. That is not at all the same thing as being charged with tax-evasion b/c you didn't pay the tax on the item you stole. I'm pretty sure if "they" (DAs) thought they could make that charge stick, they would tack that onto the theft charges.
Delivered by a locally represented shipping company that pays local taxes, I would imagine.
Pull out the corkscrew (generally extends perpendicular to handle) and use the knife as "brass knuckles". Adds a bit of ouch to your punch, plus the ouch of the sharp pointy. You know, next time you find yourself in a life or death situation with nothing but your Swiss Army knife at hand. Man, I hate Tuesdays.
Neither do camera phones. Which actually does bring up an interesting question: what about the phones that can film, as opposed to single frame photography? Constant clicking?
Even if we are all "Nicey Nicey" some people will STILL hate us. And they will STILL try to blow shit up because of that hatred. Liberals can never understand this, which is why they are perpetual victims.
If no matter what we do, people are gonna try to blow us up (or do you really think we can imprison everyone who hates us?), then it doesn't really matter what political beliefs we have, does it? We are all still victims of people trying to blow our shit up. If you want to ignore the moral implications of our actions, then the practical consideration becomes: which leads to more people at large that hate us enough to try to blow shit up, imprisoning everyone suspected of this sentiment or being nice. One way leads to a large number of people hating us, with a large number of people imprisoned for suspicion of hating us. The disjoint between these sets is the number of people at large that hate us. The other way leads to a smaller number of people that hate us, with none of them (not necessarily true, but an assumption for the sake of argument) being imprisoned. Given that we have never tried the second approach, there is no real evidence which way leads to fewer at large people that hate us. There is a large amount of evidence that one is materially more expensive than the other.
I don't think it's political correctness to refrain from generalizing an entire state of people negatively. It's just common sense; that tiny little state (ranked 26th in population, so I would suggest medium sized) has over 4 million people. You really find it intellectually honest to lump 4 million people into a single stereotype?
Non sequitors smell like the breath of those who utter them and tautologies make poor soup.
I LOVE this game!
I think you have legitimate concerns, and make a good point about someone buying up compilations of self-created underage porn probably deserving some sort of charges. In your other post, I would say the dad that shared the photos with his friends, even if it really was just for a laugh, is at best a moron who deserves to be legally slapped somehow. But that is assuming he is a grown man. I just find it hard to reconcile a body of law that says it is OK for this person to have sex with this other person, but it is not OK for the exact same person to have a nude photo of the that same other person. Somewhere, there is an obvious disconnect that needs to be addressed. Adding complexities into it such as the current situation calls for certainly makes it more difficult to police, making it more likely that someone guilty will go free. However, I think not acknowledging those complexities will ensure that many many more "innocent" people will be ruined over this.