In addition to a Faraday cage as you suggest, the NSA recommends scrambling the least significant bit of the image to increase the difficulty of descrambling.
I meant with regard to the fact that it discusses the feasibility of mining on the moon in great detail. It will not be less complex to mine and refine uranium-235/238 than helium-3.
Additionally, is it bad that I got confused when he said he was getting glibc?
I would beg to differ. Several topGooglehits suggest that they are growing, but at a rate less than the world population. Thus, as a percentage of world population, Catholocism is shrinking, but it's still growing in numbers. People are not, as you suggest, leaving it in droves.
Another great statistic I just found was that an average of 171,000 Christians are "martyred" for their faith every year. That's pretty wild! I'd make a joke about some well-fed Roman lions, but that would be in very poor taste.
Typically these questions are patently absurd, such as the ones you mention. The fact there there is a debate in the Catholic Church about something at all is typically a good indicator that the vast majority of the world has already recognized the truth. For example, your examples.
Sometimes I find it tedious to have to sift through dozens of ports of popular open source software to find a premade version for my particular flavor of linux, should it not be readily available in my distro's repository. It makes me reconsider my operating system of choice.
... did not say that 1/10th or even 1/100th of the people in jail should be guilty!
I've tried, I really have. I just cannot understand what you're saying. I think I know what you're trying to say, but your words are not bringing you there.
I know that the common interpretation of that quote is letting guilty people go free to prevent imprisoning the innocent, but as I have already discussed, the logical extrapolation is how many guilty can go free before imprisoning an innocent? That is what I am getting at.
I think there should be no limit, that no innocent should be imprisoned. Blackstone clearly differs in that 10 guilty should go free per innocent. If you'd read that link, you'd see the construction of this argument in more detail.
Really, though, it's an entirely academic debate. There is no magical metric of law that lets 10 guilty people free per innocent or something. The law pretty much lets the rich free and imprisons the poor. But that's an entirely different debate.
Well, if you say that 10 guilty go free per innocent, then 11 guilty would be too many. Therefore, for every 11 guilty people punished, there should be one innocent punished. I know it's a bit of an explicitly literal interpretation, but that aspect of that quote has always bothered me. It seems to imply that there's some upper limit on the number of guilty to go free per innocent. The link I used goes into much more detail here.
I would suggest that we should have no limit on the number of guilty to go free per innocent. But that's not really going to happen. It still hold that it's stupid that the system has to be this way.
It would be nice if everyone was just honest all the time. And it rained donuts. And I won the lottery. Shame that won't happen.
Our justice system is built on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to punish one innocent person.
So, something like 9% of prisoners in jail being innocent is a good target? I believe the quote you were referring to was actually:
Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
- English jurist William Blackstone, from a UCLA page
Which is stupid. There should be no innocent people in jail. Period. People spend their lives in prison for crimes they didn't commit, because the legal system is mass producing justice. It's not good.
Slashdot Mirror
He doesn't have the BB King achievement in Winter Veil for World Events. He isn't done yet.
Bangor is in Washington
What if the aliens have a cure? Duh.
I find that mostly the people who buy into these things are either Libras or Scorpios. Us Virgos don't fall for all that bunk.
It makes me wonder where they really get messages from "Anonymous." Do they troll /b/?
Us old folk might think "tech-savvy" is a bit generous for you iPhone-using youngsters.
Of course, use LCDs, as the CRT circuitry is the bad one.
Wikipedia would disagree with an annoying PDF.
In addition to a Faraday cage as you suggest, the NSA recommends scrambling the least significant bit of the image to increase the difficulty of descrambling.
Never fear, socialism is here!
We could always bring the entire moon down onto the surface of the earth. Eliminates the shipping problem.
I meant with regard to the fact that it discusses the feasibility of mining on the moon in great detail. It will not be less complex to mine and refine uranium-235/238 than helium-3.
Additionally, is it bad that I got confused when he said he was getting glibc?
You may find this informative.
I did it all for the cookie.
Maybe he just has a different version of nice.
Little known fact, but Fergie's original lyrics used "problematicalisticious," but the studio had her change it.
Well, maybe God just has a different version of coal. It's on steroids.
People are leaving that organization in droves.
I would beg to differ. Several top Google hits suggest that they are growing, but at a rate less than the world population. Thus, as a percentage of world population, Catholocism is shrinking, but it's still growing in numbers. People are not, as you suggest, leaving it in droves.
Another great statistic I just found was that an average of 171,000 Christians are "martyred" for their faith every year. That's pretty wild! I'd make a joke about some well-fed Roman lions, but that would be in very poor taste.
Typically these questions are patently absurd, such as the ones you mention. The fact there there is a debate in the Catholic Church about something at all is typically a good indicator that the vast majority of the world has already recognized the truth. For example, your examples.
It might be a stretch to define science as the knowledge of all things.
If you believe that's a valid argument, then I've got a tiger-repellent rock to sell you.
Sometimes I find it tedious to have to sift through dozens of ports of popular open source software to find a premade version for my particular flavor of linux, should it not be readily available in my distro's repository. It makes me reconsider my operating system of choice.
Then I hear stories like this.
... did not say that 1/10th or even 1/100th of the people in jail should be guilty!
I've tried, I really have. I just cannot understand what you're saying. I think I know what you're trying to say, but your words are not bringing you there.
I know that the common interpretation of that quote is letting guilty people go free to prevent imprisoning the innocent, but as I have already discussed, the logical extrapolation is how many guilty can go free before imprisoning an innocent? That is what I am getting at.
I think there should be no limit, that no innocent should be imprisoned. Blackstone clearly differs in that 10 guilty should go free per innocent. If you'd read that link, you'd see the construction of this argument in more detail.
Really, though, it's an entirely academic debate. There is no magical metric of law that lets 10 guilty people free per innocent or something. The law pretty much lets the rich free and imprisons the poor. But that's an entirely different debate.
Well, if you say that 10 guilty go free per innocent, then 11 guilty would be too many. Therefore, for every 11 guilty people punished, there should be one innocent punished. I know it's a bit of an explicitly literal interpretation, but that aspect of that quote has always bothered me. It seems to imply that there's some upper limit on the number of guilty to go free per innocent. The link I used goes into much more detail here.
I would suggest that we should have no limit on the number of guilty to go free per innocent. But that's not really going to happen. It still hold that it's stupid that the system has to be this way.
It would be nice if everyone was just honest all the time. And it rained donuts. And I won the lottery. Shame that won't happen.
Our justice system is built on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to punish one innocent person.
So, something like 9% of prisoners in jail being innocent is a good target? I believe the quote you were referring to was actually:
Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
- English jurist William Blackstone, from a UCLA page
Which is stupid. There should be no innocent people in jail. Period. People spend their lives in prison for crimes they didn't commit, because the legal system is mass producing justice. It's not good.
I believe you may be confusing blindness with no light perception.