With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense.
Nonsense alert - while energy density is a well-defined, meaningful metric, power density is at best a poorly defined one and at worst a meaningless juxtaposition of words, a.k.a. marketing. It certainly does not make sense to talk about both of them together this way. One of them is a physical metric, the other is... not. Otoh, if he were talking about power, that would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.
And you can up the power density just by adding more cells.
Sorry Rei, but this shows your bullshit detector is out of whack. If it's [something] density then the total amount of volume (or in this case, cells) is irrelevant, since density is [something] per unit volume (or per cell). So the statement is wrong as is, would be "right-er" for power, but then it's not just cells that you have to add, is it? more power requires higher amperage wiring, better cooling, and so on - it's not just about stuffing the car to the gills with batteries.
And lastly, for the record: despite how this Slashdot summary makes it sound, despite the short-selling surge, Tesla's stock has already recovered 2/3rds of the drop after the call. And I can't think of anything dumber than shorting a stock because you thought the CEO was rude during a call (despite the company beating its whisper number, the number that the stock was valued based on, immediately beforehand). I mean, seriously, you're going to drop the stock nearly 10% because you thought the CEO was rude? Get over your personal obsession with the guy.
:-( this post started so well, factual and stuff. Please, next time, try to refrain from repeating something like this last paragraph. If you really have to, make a separate post. There are so many things wrong in this small ending that it'd take a full post to explain - stuff about how stock market works, about sending messages, especially during conference calls, and lastly about irony and seeing emotions in others while being blind to them in oneself. I am aware of your history of posting pro-Musk things on/. but for the sake of efficiency do try to keep informative posts separated from "opinion" posts. It makes for better reading.
The fires:car ratio is about 4:1 overall:Model S. That said, most of the Model S's haven't been on the road a full year, but if we assume they've been in service an average of the three months, then the overall rate of combustion is essentially identical.
You're also comparing fire safety of a luxury sedan with the average over all UK cars, where the vast majority are quite a bit older and priced new at what, less than at half of what Model S costs. Compare Teslas with new gas cars in the same price bracket for safety if you want to be consistent, otherwise you might as well throw in some Yugos to round it up.
That is absolutely mistaken. Committing violence was **not** required. What was required was to put the needs of your society ahead of your personal safety.
Um, re-read the book. You are off as well, Heinlein refuses to ascribe a reason for the system. See the HaMP lessons at the Officer school, where the teacher states that they have that system because it works. As you pointed out, auxiliary personnel is also fully qualified for citizenship, but in peace time that's just a formal way of spending a 2-year term while doing a job that would have had the same health hazards whether inside or outside the military system, no extra life risk.[*] And he stated that crime rate is about the same for veterans and civilians, so there really is no moral compass issue to push here. As Mj. Reid says, it's a trick question.
[*] actually, not quite. There's always the risk of what happened to Rico, join up during peace time, find yourself in the middle of a war by the time you'd finish. However, the explicit goal of all who joined was to do their term (and do some cool research/piloting/etc.) and in the absence of the war it would have been just that (and no book, of course). So I'll have to disagree with you about risking life and all that, it's not the main thrust of it at all.
DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words"
That's quite surprising, considering the amount of fluff included in the latest version. Don't worry though, chances of something like that being included in a future revision are quite high. (snark is good against depression - see what i did here? regardless, please do keep in mind that it's not polite to bring DSM-V into a serious conversation. if it really must be done, use an earlier version)
It's not easy. Nothing in life ever is. But it's worth it... and you have something I didn't -- a mother that cares. Lean on her until you can stand up straight again. [*] You're a survivor. You can do this.
(* Skipping irrelevant bits) Hmm. I would be quite tempted to hit you with some more snark for this part, but that would be ill played considering the rest of that paragraph. Still, you might want to consider your own earlier words:
People will tell you that you have to try harder, or just "will" yourself to be happy. You and I both know that's stupid
so simply saying You're a survivor. You can do this. is... well, you get the idea. Any depressive that's not on medication will ask you a simple question: why? and demolish that argument. If you truly want to write that kind of letter and not just bandy words on/. consider the problem of choice - the lack of it, specifically. Depressives often enough have one way of coping with a situation, and it's a way that is (shall we say) inadequate; hence, the lack of alternatives is a big part of the problem. And depression is not exactly the most find-other-ways-enabling state of mind. I would humbly suggest, as an alternative approach, showing (not talking about) alternatives, even for minor things. To paraphrase a dead French pilot who wrote about little princes, I can describe for you the view from a mountaintop and you'll never have an image for it if you never saw it, but if I bring you there, you'll see it and you'll have your own image. The best thing imho that one can do for a depressive is enable choices. And if, given several choices, suicide still follows, then maybe a life had to come to its end, and these things can happen if you place any value on freedom of choice. But sadly it sounds as if this boy had none.
Ah, and one more thing. I would submit that it's not exactly the brain trying to kill anyone here. Brain cells and their activity suffer quite a bit in a depressive, and I'd count the brain as a victim as well. But that's just a personal opinion.
Someone's bio might appear in how many articles? A few hundred? And how often will the bio be updated? A couple of times a year? So, updating a bio comes down to touching a few hundred records a few times a year. Compare that with thousands of accesses per day and you've suddenly tipped the scale.
That would make sense if you had to pull bios with an article, which should hardly be the case. At most, you'd have to pull in current authors' affiliations. A bio would ideally stay behind an author link, and be pulled in quite rarely. I for one would much rather have a list of authors immediately followed by the abstract than having to move through several pages of biographies for an article with 4-5 authors in order to find the abstract an the actual article. So for me the decision to put every bio in every article looked like a poorly researched one. YMMV and all that.
That doesn't mean that valid uses for asserts in release code don't exist.
There are no valid cases for assert() in release code. It's about as uninformative as it gets for that. If you really need thosue checks done, put an actual check in place - you know, something that will log/tell you useful information like what invalid value was encountered versus what was expected, a stack trace, and so on. Not just printing out __FILE__ and __LINE__ and expect what, that the customer will have a debugger already attached to the process to pick up the rest of the info a developer would need?
assert() is a debug macro. If you need to test release code then use/write something appropriate for release. Especially something that does not abort() when returning an error code would be sufficient.
And you can tell me it isnt doing anything bad and should be trusted all you want, it's hot air. You cannot demonstrate that this thing is safe.
What's stopping you to make a special locked-down profile for it in selinux, apparmor or whatever favorite RBAC system you have and then check for access violations? THEN you'll know if it messes up with the system.[*] Or are you trying to argue that the client is bidding its time now, playing it safe and will do the nasty things only when Skynet becomes operational?
[*] Of course, 'demonstrate' is not what this would be doing. One can't demonstrate absolute safety on a system that can update itself any more than one can predict the future. However, one can obtain a reasonable system lockdown with judicious use of RBAC and if that is not enough for you then maybe you shouldn't be contemplating gaming on such a high-security-requirements machine in the first place.
Mate, your opinions on yourself are your own business and those on myself are lighter than a feather, so please consider not wasting page space next time. As they say, stones and sticks may break my bones and all that jazz.
Now as to your question. A picture of your face is in the majority of cases not a definitive means of identification - especially the limited type in photo IDs. Maybe you've heard of people looking alike. Perhaps that's one reason why some places (like banks) would ask you for 2 photo IDs for identification? OTOH a fingerprint is supposed to be a unique means of identifying a person. Try proving your innocence in court if the prosecution has only a picture of someone looking like you, versus them having found your fingerprint at the scene.
There's a difference between a right to privacy and the right for you to keep you existence unknown from the government.
So you're unknown to the government if they don't have your prints now? I guess before this breakthrough invention a census was a meaningless exercise. And IDs and passports a joke. And paper trail for taxes, properties and so on just something to kindle fire. Oh, how silly of so many other countries.
I agree that privacy is terribly important, but you can't deal with absolutes
Yeah, whoever heard of things that you either have or don't. Also, you're a little pregnant, you know?
The government isn't collecting this information to spy on its citizens, its doing so to provide services to them and properly run the government.
Right. Of course. And whoever does not fully trust that bunch of selfish bureaucrats is a traitor. Or a terrorist. Or something. Mussolini would be proud of you, son.
'We initially left the choice of using it up to you because there's a downside: https can make your mail slower since encrypted data doesn't travel across the web as quickly as unencrypted data.'
Huh? Encrypted bits are asthmatic and can't run as fast as unencrypted ones? Coming from someone at Google this statement is quite the WTF. Is it too technical now to say that encrypting data requires extra calculations which introduce delays so gmail will respond somewhat slower?
C++ versus C perhaps? I don't see Gimp devs going the C++ way for such a core part as the image manipulation library. GEGL uses glib and a bunch of other pieces that were designed to work nicely with gtk+. That, and GEGL predates Adobe opensourcing GIL (although it was nearly dead for a long time).
Pity, actually - from what the GIL site says, it seems to be quite an impressive piece of software.
Times New Roman can type every single character on the character map, which is a FUCKING LOT of scientific characters.
Umm, no. It's a fucking lot of Latin characters, but pitiful wrt scientific notation. Check out the AMS symbol fonts in LaTeX if you want to get a clue.
Sorry for dropping in late on this. It seems to me you are confused - or at least confusing things, whether on purpose or not. I believe the appropriate question here is enforcing whose freedoms on whom? I believe the original oxymoron statement was meant in terms of not being possible to enforce someone's freedom on themselves, as it stops being free. The GP covered that case. Now about your examples:
But you can force people to honor your freedom.
Ah, my freedom enforced on them. That makes me free, but also makes them less so. When completely one-sided, it's the definition of tyrrany.
You can also force others to not infringe on the freedom of others.
Different sets of others here, I gather. Anyway, your statement is effectively you are free to do anything except not respecting other people's rights. That is not the same as free.
The problem with the except clauses is that freedom is atomic - you either have it or you don't. Any attempt to slice it makes it go away. Now, there is the argument that complete freedom (anarchy style) is not necessarily good for progress and some constraints can be useful anyway. You can pick your favorite shade of grey here by choosing what restrictions you can live with, but calling it white is misleading.
So yes, I believe the op was right in calling 'enforced freedom' an oxymoron. In particular, what GPL means to do is to restrict the amount of un-freedom. It's a laudable goal[*], but the mere fact that you're restricting makes it un-free.
[*] in terms of using (now-)non-evil restrictions to fight evil ones. And one sees the same pattern again, of giving up freedom for the sake of enforcing a moral judgment. Oh well.
While I think he mis-stated Anything that is science requires math. you just proved the point. All in A are in B does not imply A equal to B. You might want to revisit either Logic or Set Theory which, incidentally are... math.
I'll go with the fact that you have a low UID and tell you to get back to school, not to finish going through it. Anyway, feel free to use a statistics book as a cluestick.
A female suicide bomber DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS their cherry-picked "evidence" for their theory.
A female suicide bomber is not a large enough sample to draw statistically-significant conclusions from. Their statements concern statistical distributions, not absolutes (as in 'with confidence level of xx%, the population A has feature X') - so your objection is baseless. Given a significant enough number of female bombers one can analyze the distribution of their motives and refine the conclusion, although I for one would not enjoy seeing this particular population size expanded.
Since they are not addressing female suicide bombers, it is "Junk science". Otherwise the presence of female suicide bombers would be the falsification of their theory and they'd modify the theory.
Instead, they attempt to modify the data set.
No, it's a valid study concerning a data set on which meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Clue: for it to be useful, you want to have a high enough confidence level for the result, and that requires a certain sample size. Making authoritative statements when your confidence level is low would be junk science (and that would come with 'analyzing' a fringe population of bombers with sample size low enough that your uncertainty would be of the order of 100%)
Feel free to show me that the population of female suicide bombers is large enough as to draw meaningful statistical conclusions from it. Then I'll apologize and agree with the statement that the study was be incorrectly qualified, since it refers only to the male bombers; however, if performed correctly it would still be valid for that population. Otherwise please raise valid objections next time as opposed to politically-correct ones.
Re:Be Glad You Don't Program Mainframe Cobol
on
Are 80 Columns Enough?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Hah! I knew I had reason to be grateful for the luxury of Fortran's 72 characters per line! You Cobol guys need to start catching up with the times, ya know.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. 5-6 hr. talk-time battery for the SLVR is bad, but iPhone's 7-8 hr. of talk time with the WiFi switched off is good? (fwiw CNet said they had 7:20 hr. of talk time w/o WiFi and less than 4hr with WiFi; now that's a treat - better put a cap to your daily amount of YouTube browsing then, since video sans WiFi is only about 7hr as well).
Anyway, talk + wireless + music/video = you'll have to recharge daily. That's OK, but the battery seems rated at 300-400 recharges, so it means you might just make it untill the end of the 2yr. contract with the original battery, if you're savvy about how much you use the phone. And what if you're the type that often enough has long phone conferences that will push the 7-8hr. limit on the iPhone? 'Regular' phones that are not so smart as to solder the battery allow you to make do with carrying a spare for such occasions. IPhone's way? well, there will probably be portable rechargers sometime in the future. Not much else to hope for at this stage.
Slashdot Mirror
With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense.
Nonsense alert - while energy density is a well-defined, meaningful metric, power density is at best a poorly defined one and at worst a meaningless juxtaposition of words, a.k.a. marketing. It certainly does not make sense to talk about both of them together this way. One of them is a physical metric, the other is ... not. Otoh, if he were talking about power, that would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.
And you can up the power density just by adding more cells.
Sorry Rei, but this shows your bullshit detector is out of whack. If it's [something] density then the total amount of volume (or in this case, cells) is irrelevant, since density is [something] per unit volume (or per cell). So the statement is wrong as is, would be "right-er" for power, but then it's not just cells that you have to add, is it? more power requires higher amperage wiring, better cooling, and so on - it's not just about stuffing the car to the gills with batteries.
And lastly, for the record: despite how this Slashdot summary makes it sound, despite the short-selling surge, Tesla's stock has already recovered 2/3rds of the drop after the call. And I can't think of anything dumber than shorting a stock because you thought the CEO was rude during a call (despite the company beating its whisper number, the number that the stock was valued based on, immediately beforehand). I mean, seriously, you're going to drop the stock nearly 10% because you thought the CEO was rude? Get over your personal obsession with the guy.
:-( this post started so well, factual and stuff. Please, next time, try to refrain from repeating something like this last paragraph. If you really have to, make a separate post. There are so many things wrong in this small ending that it'd take a full post to explain - stuff about how stock market works, about sending messages, especially during conference calls, and lastly about irony and seeing emotions in others while being blind to them in oneself. I am aware of your history of posting pro-Musk things on /. but for the sake of efficiency do try to keep informative posts separated from "opinion" posts. It makes for better reading.
The fires:car ratio is about 4:1 overall:Model S. That said, most of the Model S's haven't been on the road a full year, but if we assume they've been in service an average of the three months, then the overall rate of combustion is essentially identical.
You're also comparing fire safety of a luxury sedan with the average over all UK cars, where the vast majority are quite a bit older and priced new at what, less than at half of what Model S costs. Compare Teslas with new gas cars in the same price bracket for safety if you want to be consistent, otherwise you might as well throw in some Yugos to round it up.
That is absolutely mistaken. Committing violence was **not** required. What was required was to put the needs of your society ahead of your personal safety.
Um, re-read the book. You are off as well, Heinlein refuses to ascribe a reason for the system. See the HaMP lessons at the Officer school, where the teacher states that they have that system because it works. As you pointed out, auxiliary personnel is also fully qualified for citizenship, but in peace time that's just a formal way of spending a 2-year term while doing a job that would have had the same health hazards whether inside or outside the military system, no extra life risk.[*] And he stated that crime rate is about the same for veterans and civilians, so there really is no moral compass issue to push here. As Mj. Reid says, it's a trick question.
[*] actually, not quite. There's always the risk of what happened to Rico, join up during peace time, find yourself in the middle of a war by the time you'd finish. However, the explicit goal of all who joined was to do their term (and do some cool research/piloting/etc.) and in the absence of the war it would have been just that (and no book, of course). So I'll have to disagree with you about risking life and all that, it's not the main thrust of it at all.
DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words"
That's quite surprising, considering the amount of fluff included in the latest version. Don't worry though, chances of something like that being included in a future revision are quite high. (snark is good against depression - see what i did here? regardless, please do keep in mind that it's not polite to bring DSM-V into a serious conversation. if it really must be done, use an earlier version)
It's not easy. Nothing in life ever is. But it's worth it... and you have something I didn't -- a mother that cares. Lean on her until you can stand up straight again. [*] You're a survivor. You can do this.
(* Skipping irrelevant bits)
Hmm. I would be quite tempted to hit you with some more snark for this part, but that would be ill played considering the rest of that paragraph. Still, you might want to consider your own earlier words:
People will tell you that you have to try harder, or just "will" yourself to be happy. You and I both know that's stupid
so simply saying You're a survivor. You can do this. is ... well, you get the idea. Any depressive that's not on medication will ask you a simple question: why? and demolish that argument. If you truly want to write that kind of letter and not just bandy words on /. consider the problem of choice - the lack of it, specifically. Depressives often enough have one way of coping with a situation, and it's a way that is (shall we say) inadequate; hence, the lack of alternatives is a big part of the problem. And depression is not exactly the most find-other-ways-enabling state of mind. I would humbly suggest, as an alternative approach, showing (not talking about) alternatives, even for minor things. To paraphrase a dead French pilot who wrote about little princes, I can describe for you the view from a mountaintop and you'll never have an image for it if you never saw it, but if I bring you there, you'll see it and you'll have your own image. The best thing imho that one can do for a depressive is enable choices. And if, given several choices, suicide still follows, then maybe a life had to come to its end, and these things can happen if you place any value on freedom of choice. But sadly it sounds as if this boy had none.
Ah, and one more thing. I would submit that it's not exactly the brain trying to kill anyone here. Brain cells and their activity suffer quite a bit in a depressive, and I'd count the brain as a victim as well. But that's just a personal opinion.
Someone's bio might appear in how many articles? A few hundred? And how often will the bio be updated? A couple of times a year? So, updating a bio comes down to touching a few hundred records a few times a year. Compare that with thousands of accesses per day and you've suddenly tipped the scale.
That would make sense if you had to pull bios with an article, which should hardly be the case. At most, you'd have to pull in current authors' affiliations. A bio would ideally stay behind an author link, and be pulled in quite rarely. I for one would much rather have a list of authors immediately followed by the abstract than having to move through several pages of biographies for an article with 4-5 authors in order to find the abstract an the actual article. So for me the decision to put every bio in every article looked like a poorly researched one. YMMV and all that.
That doesn't mean that valid uses for asserts in release code don't exist.
There are no valid cases for assert() in release code. It's about as uninformative as it gets for that. If you really need thosue checks done, put an actual check in place - you know, something that will log/tell you useful information like what invalid value was encountered versus what was expected, a stack trace, and so on. Not just printing out __FILE__ and __LINE__ and expect what, that the customer will have a debugger already attached to the process to pick up the rest of the info a developer would need?
assert() is a debug macro. If you need to test release code then use/write something appropriate for release. Especially something that does not abort() when returning an error code would be sufficient.
And you can tell me it isnt doing anything bad and should be trusted all you want, it's hot air. You cannot demonstrate that this thing is safe.
What's stopping you to make a special locked-down profile for it in selinux, apparmor or whatever favorite RBAC system you have and then check for access violations? THEN you'll know if it messes up with the system.[*] Or are you trying to argue that the client is bidding its time now, playing it safe and will do the nasty things only when Skynet becomes operational?
[*] Of course, 'demonstrate' is not what this would be doing. One can't demonstrate absolute safety on a system that can update itself any more than one can predict the future. However, one can obtain a reasonable system lockdown with judicious use of RBAC and if that is not enough for you then maybe you shouldn't be contemplating gaming on such a high-security-requirements machine in the first place.
Mate, your opinions on yourself are your own business and those on myself are lighter than a feather, so please consider not wasting page space next time. As they say, stones and sticks may break my bones and all that jazz.
Now as to your question. A picture of your face is in the majority of cases not a definitive means of identification - especially the limited type in photo IDs. Maybe you've heard of people looking alike. Perhaps that's one reason why some places (like banks) would ask you for 2 photo IDs for identification? OTOH a fingerprint is supposed to be a unique means of identifying a person. Try proving your innocence in court if the prosecution has only a picture of someone looking like you, versus them having found your fingerprint at the scene.
There's a difference between a right to privacy and the right for you to keep you existence unknown from the government.
So you're unknown to the government if they don't have your prints now? I guess before this breakthrough invention a census was a meaningless exercise. And IDs and passports a joke. And paper trail for taxes, properties and so on just something to kindle fire. Oh, how silly of so many other countries.
I agree that privacy is terribly important, but you can't deal with absolutes
Yeah, whoever heard of things that you either have or don't. Also, you're a little pregnant, you know?
The government isn't collecting this information to spy on its citizens, its doing so to provide services to them and properly run the government.
Right. Of course. And whoever does not fully trust that bunch of selfish bureaucrats is a traitor. Or a terrorist. Or something. Mussolini would be proud of you, son.
'We initially left the choice of using it up to you because there's a downside: https can make your mail slower since encrypted data doesn't travel across the web as quickly as unencrypted data.'
Huh? Encrypted bits are asthmatic and can't run as fast as unencrypted ones? Coming from someone at Google this statement is quite the WTF. Is it too technical now to say that encrypting data requires extra calculations which introduce delays so gmail will respond somewhat slower?
Yeah, it's a fast CPU. And it gets faster if you have smaller hands. Or if you watch your hands move by at close to the speed of light. Way cool.
Should sell like crazy in Japan.
Paris Hilton
... wow. I thought Paris Hilton defined -inf for wisdom as well as intelligence, but man was I wrong.
Intelligence: 9
Wisdom: 8
George W. Bush
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 6
Wow. I mean
Gotta go search for my jawbone on the floor now.
It's the other way around, actually. With the elections heating up, the only 'normal' day in 2k8 is 04/01.
C++ versus C perhaps? I don't see Gimp devs going the C++ way for such a core part as the image manipulation library. GEGL uses glib and a bunch of other pieces that were designed to work nicely with gtk+. That, and GEGL predates Adobe opensourcing GIL (although it was nearly dead for a long time).
Pity, actually - from what the GIL site says, it seems to be quite an impressive piece of software.
Particularly, and gloriously so, when the quad-core system is not powered on.
Apply mud. Liberally.
Methinks you might want to consider first who it was that missed you.
I can't believe you put FOP in that list while leaving pdflatex out!
Times New Roman can type every single character on the character map, which is a FUCKING LOT of scientific characters.
Umm, no. It's a fucking lot of Latin characters, but pitiful wrt scientific notation. Check out the AMS symbol fonts in LaTeX if you want to get a clue.
What you and JK Rowling have in common is a dire need for competent editing.
The problem with the except clauses is that freedom is atomic - you either have it or you don't. Any attempt to slice it makes it go away. Now, there is the argument that complete freedom (anarchy style) is not necessarily good for progress and some constraints can be useful anyway. You can pick your favorite shade of grey here by choosing what restrictions you can live with, but calling it white is misleading.
So yes, I believe the op was right in calling 'enforced freedom' an oxymoron. In particular, what GPL means to do is to restrict the amount of un-freedom. It's a laudable goal[*], but the mere fact that you're restricting makes it un-free.
[*] in terms of using (now-)non-evil restrictions to fight evil ones. And one sees the same pattern again, of giving up freedom for the sake of enforcing a moral judgment. Oh well.
While I think he mis-stated Anything that is science requires math. you just proved the point. All in A are in B does not imply A equal to B. You might want to revisit either Logic or Set Theory which, incidentally are
I'll go with the fact that you have a low UID and tell you to get back to school, not to finish going through it. Anyway, feel free to use a statistics book as a cluestick.
A female suicide bomber DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS their cherry-picked "evidence" for their theory.
A female suicide bomber is not a large enough sample to draw statistically-significant conclusions from. Their statements concern statistical distributions, not absolutes (as in 'with confidence level of xx%, the population A has feature X') - so your objection is baseless. Given a significant enough number of female bombers one can analyze the distribution of their motives and refine the conclusion, although I for one would not enjoy seeing this particular population size expanded.
Since they are not addressing female suicide bombers, it is "Junk science". Otherwise the presence of female suicide bombers would be the falsification of their theory and they'd modify the theory.
Instead, they attempt to modify the data set.
No, it's a valid study concerning a data set on which meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Clue: for it to be useful, you want to have a high enough confidence level for the result, and that requires a certain sample size. Making authoritative statements when your confidence level is low would be junk science (and that would come with 'analyzing' a fringe population of bombers with sample size low enough that your uncertainty would be of the order of 100%)
Feel free to show me that the population of female suicide bombers is large enough as to draw meaningful statistical conclusions from it. Then I'll apologize and agree with the statement that the study was be incorrectly qualified, since it refers only to the male bombers; however, if performed correctly it would still be valid for that population. Otherwise please raise valid objections next time as opposed to politically-correct ones.
Hah! I knew I had reason to be grateful for the luxury of Fortran's 72 characters per line! You Cobol guys need to start catching up with the times, ya know.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. 5-6 hr. talk-time battery for the SLVR is bad, but iPhone's 7-8 hr. of talk time with the WiFi switched off is good? (fwiw CNet said they had 7:20 hr. of talk time w/o WiFi and less than 4hr with WiFi; now that's a treat - better put a cap to your daily amount of YouTube browsing then, since video sans WiFi is only about 7hr as well).
Anyway, talk + wireless + music/video = you'll have to recharge daily. That's OK, but the battery seems rated at 300-400 recharges, so it means you might just make it untill the end of the 2yr. contract with the original battery, if you're savvy about how much you use the phone. And what if you're the type that often enough has long phone conferences that will push the 7-8hr. limit on the iPhone? 'Regular' phones that are not so smart as to solder the battery allow you to make do with carrying a spare for such occasions. IPhone's way? well, there will probably be portable rechargers sometime in the future. Not much else to hope for at this stage.