Yes, you obviously did as my statements applied only to being in public, indoors, in the dark. You got two out of three, but missed one.
Let me get this straight. By this:
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched.
it is implied that you are restricting the entire scope of your inference sheerly to dark public indoor enclosures? How is it that I am to know I can extrapolate "indoor" from "theater" but not "people" who "assume they aren't being watched" to people outdoors? What exactly is it that determines that part of your post which is to be generalized and that which is only supposed to apply to the unique specific instance mentioned? And how is it that you can so freely extend on notions of privacy to apply to this particular instance and not others?
In addition to all that, you seem to fail to understand the difference between logic and premises.
No, I did not.
Quoth I your response: "No, just indoors." If you have trouble seeing that this is a new assertion, try running diff on that and your original post.
I just went back and re-read my post. It still was implied.
I think by reference to your original post:
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched.
it is quite obvious what was and what was not implied. But persist as you will. I leave it to those who may peruse this and to your own subconscious to judge who here is correct.
Quite true. However, I've made the decision to differ from the accepted English language in that one instance, because I believe the additional clarity of the puncuation is worth the deviation of the rule.
Yes, and I do that often myself. I do not care a whit about your silly deviations from standard English rules; but I do think it is hypocritical of you to lambast me for the omission of a simple comma and not yourself practice perfect punctuation. That was my point. I am really not very interested in getting in a debate with you over grammar.
Not according to Meriam-Webster.
My understanding derives from the MLA handbook, and while they do sometimes change their minds about things (for example, now it is only one space after the colon that is expected, not two as was the case formerly) they are generally deferred to as the authority on proper grammar.
In any case, I'm certain the lack of spaces could not even possibly have lead to a misunderstanding of what I was typing.
Oh, and you honestly could not have correctly comprehended the sentence of mine that sparked all this without me telling you where the comma should go?
You are mistaken.
No, I am not, and that is not a doctrinal difference either; you would find Merriam-Webster and MLA in full consensus that the presence of an ellipses does not render unnecessary closing punctuation. Merriam-Webster says to do it as so "...." while for MLA it would be ". . ..".
No, what you said was: "By your logic". Clearly, you were mistaken about my logic, and I made a correction to help you better understand.
I made no mistake about your logic, and you did not make a "correction"; you made another assertion.
I did not mention it. In fact, it was implied by the context.
If you really think that, I suggest you re-read your initial post.
I don't have any "using your thinking binoculars", thank you very much...
I apologize if the omission of a comma confused you, Mr. "there's be a huge outrage." There should be one inserted after the word "thinking" in the above. By the way, when you have punctuation which follows quoted text it should go inside the quotes; an ellipses should have spaces (". .." instead of "..."); and your sentence needs a closing period as well. You are quite welcome.
No, just indoors.
I didn't ask where you thought it should apply. I said where according to what you said it would apply. Quote from me where you mentioned anything about limiting the scope of your the object of your argument to indoors.
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched.
By your logic, every use of night vision goggles constitutes an invasion of privacy, unless they are used where it's well lit.
Even then, if they have a telescoping lens, using your thinking binoculars likewise compromise privacy (when I'm far away from people, I expect they can't see me).
If you would read the article, you would find that there are four hours a day when the records are accessible from the Justice Department (though these, as you might suspect, are not as up to date as the actual database)
The records are an order of magnitude larger than what might be easily "copied and sent out". I'm sure that might be arranged, though, provided adequate compensation. At least I sure hope the government is not in the business of spending $10,000 in toner and paper just to quench random individuals' curiosity.
Not to mention that if the records magically 'disappear' all they have to say it "look we told you so"
I dont think anyone is gonna believe this for a second. More like a lot of people want this information permanently buried as to avoid letting the public know whats going on.
Hey, if you want to view this information, feel free to take a drive down to Washington and read the print out.
If you want something you can access on your PDA that is more regularly updated, I hardly think it constitutes a government conspiracy that a database that was never meant to be accessed by anything other than its present system will take a while to be ported.
Sheesh, people, if you don't like the Bush administration vote for someone else in November. Let's quit with the conspiracy crap.
In the 1930s, American social scientist George Kingsley Zipf discovered that if he ranked words in literary texts according to the number of times they appeared, a word's rank was roughly proportional to the inverse of the its frequency squared.
So, given my experiences downtown, "f***" has a frequency of what, 0.0001?
Sheesh, I'd swear people down there are capable of holding complete and intricate conversations using solely that word.
Get rid of hate speech. We'll finally stampout those base hateful societal dregs!
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
Hey, Adam!
Congratulations on getting a submission posted! (Sheesh, don't I feel silly initiating a greeting with admiration of one's exploits on slashdot.:p)
How goes it?
God bless!/me (spamplz@comcast.net)
If possible, yes. And I'm sure Britain does that with locally hosted sites, but how the heck are they supposed to prosecute individuals and ISPs in Taiwan?
At the very least, they are removing potential "customers" from the market.
In the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, each possibility is represented is represented by a branching universe. So if you flip a coin, there is a universe in which it goes heads, and one in which it goes tales. (that is oversimplifying a bit--there would in fact be infinitely many of each)
Well, how do you know if you live in such a "multiverse"? The answer was proposed by Max Tegmark just a few years back:
Take a gun, put it to your head, and pull the trigger. Repeat several times. If the multiverse model is correct, then your "self" will continue to exist only in those universes where the gun does not fire. So if you try and pull it a bunch of times and nothing happens, you must be one of the many parallel yous who happens to live in a universe where, in spite of probability, the gun did not fire.
Of course, I would not recommend trying it. If the MWI is correct, well, then in another universe you already have tried.
First off, the author can't keep straight the difference between a photon (a boson) and a proton (fermion).
Second of all, he credits David Deutsch with an idea that most certainly is not his. Both the notion of wave functions (what this article is talking about) and the idea that this somehow relates to parallel universes are older than I am.
This is not a revolutionary idea, and it is not really a controversial one either, as the author of the article seems to indicate. This is just one explanation of a curious quantum mechanical effect. There are other explanations, and they all describe what happens quite accurately. They may each have their own proponents, but really none of them is wrong--they are just different interpretations.
I generally do not like griping, but this write up is positively abysmal. It is no offense to David Deutsch--I am sure he is a quite competent individual. But I do not think the author of this paper actually read his book. It sounds too much like the BS I would string together from reading the first few chapters and the epilogue when I had a book assignment in schoool.
Go here for a decent, intuitive, layman's introduction to various quantum mechanical oddities.
Build Your Own Wireless Beer Pitcher Monitoring System
Well, I guess that's definitely a step forward from the (now) antequated "Plug-in Beer Pitcher Monitoring System." Sure, you can get around the bar if you bring an extension cord, but don't spill your beer on any open leads. Drunk geeks make excellent ground connections.
If the springs are wound by rotating in the opposite direction... why not just wind it up only a few meters in the middle of a large parking lot? Can't go any further than you wind it...
Well, yes it can. As a matter of fact, it can go arbitrarily far with arbitrary impulse, depending on the mechanism inside it that stores the energy. (There are, of course, technological limitations and some limitations of physical law on the extreme end)
You don't know how much energy it takes to wind this thing back a few meters. It could easily be tend times the energy required to move it forward a few meters. Think of a cross bow. You only "wind" the bow back a fraction of a meter at most. Does in any way limit the distance the bolt will fly to just a fraction of a meter?
Don't forget the MP3, SVCD, and Warez sites that will also likely exploit the service.
Simple, cap the bandwidth. Even if google gave you unlimited storage space, it is hard to imagine being able to turn that into a fileserver if the account is capped at a total of 3k/sec. Personally, I would still rather go with IRC and/or Kazaa.
Allow me to explain something. You, sir, are a codified idiot. I have reasoned my arguments to you. I have explained why they are true. I have invited you to ask me to explain them further, or to raise objection to the reasoning where you perceived there to be cause. Instead, you can only parrot the same things over again. You cling to a sentence in a usegroup discussion which can be used to support your position as though it were dogmatic truth.
It means nothing to you that I have shown you why you are wrong. It does not matter how simply I explain things, how obvious I make them, not even the number of supporting resources I can conjur.
You, sir, do not have citations from four peer reviewed journals supporting your position, you have four citations showing that distilled water is not significantly harmful to lab rats. Congratulations. I know you have not read those articles, and if you did you would not understand them. If they completely contradicted your position, it would not matter. I have linked you information straight from companies which MANUFACTURE deionized water, but it seems you would sooner believe that these companies are unaware of the processes by which they perform this manufacture than that you might possibly be incorrect.
You do not understand chemistry, you do not understand biology, you are incapable of making elementary logical connections, most notably:
1. Drinking too much water can flush electrolytes and cause sickness and/or death (from information you provided)
2. Deionized water sucks up electrolytes, even dissolving metal to do so
3. Because drinking water and losing electrolytes is bad, and deionized water causes immediate loss of electrolytes, drinking deoinized water is bad.
I do not know how to reason with people who can not even understand basic syllogisms.
Plainly put, you, sir, are mind-numbingly dense. There is no possible way for me to remove the confused notions from your head. I am not going to continue this debate because I have already presented my case, and you refuse to attack it. You only persist in illogically contesting its conclusions. Since you will not believe anything I say, I again suggest talking to your biochemist friends. Otherwise, I suppose continue believing as you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you obviously did as my statements applied only to being in public, indoors, in the dark. You got two out of three, but missed one.
Let me get this straight. By this:
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched.
it is implied that you are restricting the entire scope of your inference sheerly to dark public indoor enclosures? How is it that I am to know I can extrapolate "indoor" from "theater" but not "people" who "assume they aren't being watched" to people outdoors? What exactly is it that determines that part of your post which is to be generalized and that which is only supposed to apply to the unique specific instance mentioned? And how is it that you can so freely extend on notions of privacy to apply to this particular instance and not others?
In addition to all that, you seem to fail to understand the difference between logic and premises.
No, I did not.
Quoth I your response: "No, just indoors." If you have trouble seeing that this is a new assertion, try running diff on that and your original post.
I just went back and re-read my post. It still was implied.
I think by reference to your original post:
I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched.
it is quite obvious what was and what was not implied. But persist as you will. I leave it to those who may peruse this and to your own subconscious to judge who here is correct.
Yes, and I do that often myself. I do not care a whit about your silly deviations from standard English rules; but I do think it is hypocritical of you to lambast me for the omission of a simple comma and not yourself practice perfect punctuation. That was my point. I am really not very interested in getting in a debate with you over grammar.
Not according to Meriam-Webster.
My understanding derives from the MLA handbook, and while they do sometimes change their minds about things (for example, now it is only one space after the colon that is expected, not two as was the case formerly) they are generally deferred to as the authority on proper grammar.
In any case, I'm certain the lack of spaces could not even possibly have lead to a misunderstanding of what I was typing.
Oh, and you honestly could not have correctly comprehended the sentence of mine that sparked all this without me telling you where the comma should go?
You are mistaken.
No, I am not, and that is not a doctrinal difference either; you would find Merriam-Webster and MLA in full consensus that the presence of an ellipses does not render unnecessary closing punctuation. Merriam-Webster says to do it as so "... ." while for MLA it would be ". . . .".
No, what you said was: "By your logic". Clearly, you were mistaken about my logic, and I made a correction to help you better understand.
I made no mistake about your logic, and you did not make a "correction"; you made another assertion.
I did not mention it. In fact, it was implied by the context.
If you really think that, I suggest you re-read your initial post.
I apologize if the omission of a comma confused you, Mr. "there's be a huge outrage." There should be one inserted after the word "thinking" in the above. By the way, when you have punctuation which follows quoted text it should go inside the quotes; an ellipses should have spaces (". . ." instead of "..."); and your sentence needs a closing period as well. You are quite welcome.
No, just indoors.
I didn't ask where you thought it should apply. I said where according to what you said it would apply. Quote from me where you mentioned anything about limiting the scope of your the object of your argument to indoors.
By your logic, every use of night vision goggles constitutes an invasion of privacy, unless they are used where it's well lit.
Even then, if they have a telescoping lens, using your thinking binoculars likewise compromise privacy (when I'm far away from people, I expect they can't see me).
The records are an order of magnitude larger than what might be easily "copied and sent out". I'm sure that might be arranged, though, provided adequate compensation. At least I sure hope the government is not in the business of spending $10,000 in toner and paper just to quench random individuals' curiosity.
I dont think anyone is gonna believe this for a second. More like a lot of people want this information permanently buried as to avoid letting the public know whats going on.
Hey, if you want to view this information, feel free to take a drive down to Washington and read the print out.
If you want something you can access on your PDA that is more regularly updated, I hardly think it constitutes a government conspiracy that a database that was never meant to be accessed by anything other than its present system will take a while to be ported.
Sheesh, people, if you don't like the Bush administration vote for someone else in November. Let's quit with the conspiracy crap.
So, given my experiences downtown, "f***" has a frequency of what, 0.0001?
Sheesh, I'd swear people down there are capable of holding complete and intricate conversations using solely that word.
It must be the most musical word of all.
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
Hey, Adam! Congratulations on getting a submission posted! (Sheesh, don't I feel silly initiating a greeting with admiration of one's exploits on slashdot. :p)
How goes it?
God bless! /me (spamplz@comcast.net)
If possible, yes. And I'm sure Britain does that with locally hosted sites, but how the heck are they supposed to prosecute individuals and ISPs in Taiwan? At the very least, they are removing potential "customers" from the market.
They have women in Poland?
Well, I guess they were right. . .
As long as you're going to have little nano robots carry out your body's natural functions, why not go all the way, i.e. brain in a vat?
Well, how do you know if you live in such a "multiverse"? The answer was proposed by Max Tegmark just a few years back:
Take a gun, put it to your head, and pull the trigger. Repeat several times. If the multiverse model is correct, then your "self" will continue to exist only in those universes where the gun does not fire. So if you try and pull it a bunch of times and nothing happens, you must be one of the many parallel yous who happens to live in a universe where, in spite of probability, the gun did not fire.
Of course, I would not recommend trying it. If the MWI is correct, well, then in another universe you already have tried.
Second of all, he credits David Deutsch with an idea that most certainly is not his. Both the notion of wave functions (what this article is talking about) and the idea that this somehow relates to parallel universes are older than I am.
This is not a revolutionary idea, and it is not really a controversial one either, as the author of the article seems to indicate. This is just one explanation of a curious quantum mechanical effect. There are other explanations, and they all describe what happens quite accurately. They may each have their own proponents, but really none of them is wrong--they are just different interpretations.
I generally do not like griping, but this write up is positively abysmal. It is no offense to David Deutsch--I am sure he is a quite competent individual. But I do not think the author of this paper actually read his book. It sounds too much like the BS I would string together from reading the first few chapters and the epilogue when I had a book assignment in schoool.
Go here for a decent, intuitive, layman's introduction to various quantum mechanical oddities.
Why not perpendicular, or skew? I think that differently oriented manifolds are being discriminated against!
Who's going to develop a virus to kill the virus that kills the HIV virus?
Reviews and comments.
Well, I guess that's definitely a step forward from the (now) antequated "Plug-in Beer Pitcher Monitoring System." Sure, you can get around the bar if you bring an extension cord, but don't spill your beer on any open leads. Drunk geeks make excellent ground connections.
Good thing, 'cause I think they're gonna need one. ;)
Well, yes it can. As a matter of fact, it can go arbitrarily far with arbitrary impulse, depending on the mechanism inside it that stores the energy. (There are, of course, technological limitations and some limitations of physical law on the extreme end)
You don't know how much energy it takes to wind this thing back a few meters. It could easily be tend times the energy required to move it forward a few meters. Think of a cross bow. You only "wind" the bow back a fraction of a meter at most. Does in any way limit the distance the bolt will fly to just a fraction of a meter?
I will soon complete a modern version of Da Vinci's nuclear breeder reactor as soon as I can find a wood cog that decelerates neutron emissions.
You might also try using your telescope to project an image of the sun onto a screen.
Simple, cap the bandwidth. Even if google gave you unlimited storage space, it is hard to imagine being able to turn that into a fileserver if the account is capped at a total of 3k/sec. Personally, I would still rather go with IRC and/or Kazaa.
It means nothing to you that I have shown you why you are wrong. It does not matter how simply I explain things, how obvious I make them, not even the number of supporting resources I can conjur.
You, sir, do not have citations from four peer reviewed journals supporting your position, you have four citations showing that distilled water is not significantly harmful to lab rats. Congratulations. I know you have not read those articles, and if you did you would not understand them. If they completely contradicted your position, it would not matter. I have linked you information straight from companies which MANUFACTURE deionized water, but it seems you would sooner believe that these companies are unaware of the processes by which they perform this manufacture than that you might possibly be incorrect.
You do not understand chemistry, you do not understand biology, you are incapable of making elementary logical connections, most notably:
1. Drinking too much water can flush electrolytes and cause sickness and/or death (from information you provided)
2. Deionized water sucks up electrolytes, even dissolving metal to do so
3. Because drinking water and losing electrolytes is bad, and deionized water causes immediate loss of electrolytes, drinking deoinized water is bad.
I do not know how to reason with people who can not even understand basic syllogisms.
Plainly put, you, sir, are mind-numbingly dense. There is no possible way for me to remove the confused notions from your head. I am not going to continue this debate because I have already presented my case, and you refuse to attack it. You only persist in illogically contesting its conclusions. Since you will not believe anything I say, I again suggest talking to your biochemist friends. Otherwise, I suppose continue believing as you will.