That's a definite lie. I've never had anything but quad-band GSM phones (Galaxy S1 atm), and they've all created noise in my speakers on incoming calls/texts.
Polygraphs aren't used as lie-detectors (by any one competent). They're used to trick people into confessing (like all interrogation techniques).
When I was at LANL (2006) they didn't require them for clearance (and most of the cleared staff scientists I knew outright stated they would have refused them for exactly the reason you point out), but they did offer it as an option for "expedited clearance."
"X offers 50% off!" would be nothing but a slashvertisment if it wasn't O'Reilly, one of the few publishers who really understand the geek market.
It's still nothing but a slashvertisement. It's just one I'm not that upset about as I go to decide if I want to add any of the Perl ebooks to my existing paper set...
There are two reasons for having punishment for crimes. The first is to prevent a convict from committing further crimes by physically preventing them access (incarceration). The second is to prevent future criminals by deterrent. The latter is a complete joke, as deterrents have fundamental requirements to be successful which include: They must be swift, sure and severe. This is a natural extensions of deterrence. The heaviest emphasis must be placed on sureness, and the least emphasis is placed on severity. In fact in many cases, the severity of the punishment has little effect on recidivism or crime rate in general. Our legal system fails because punishment is far from sure. Our legal tenet of letting 10 guilty men go free so as to avoid one innocent man being wrongly convicted is deeply flawed. The problem is one of social good. How much harm does one innocent man being punished cause, vs how much harm does not catching and punishing all criminals cause. Much of our crime problem has to do with criminals not believing they will be caught. Every year, many people are murdered, and property crimes [fbi.gov] are out of control. In 2010 alone there were more than 9 million property crimes in the U.S. That's one crime for every 35 people
I'm going to have to scream bullshit, though that's a mild exaggeration. You've missed reality by a wide margin though. First, crime is not out of control-- crime is at historic lows. The world is safer now than it has been in decades, for both violent and property crimes. There are not just fewer crimes, but there are also far more people in jail than ever before, both in absolute and per capita terms. In other words, you are less likely to be the victim of a crime and you are more likely to be convicted for committing a crime, than at any time in the last few decades.
Second, there are a long list of other reasons to have punishments for crimes. You're guilty of espousing a false dichotomy so absurd it barely warrants rebuttal. Deterrent, restraint, rehabilitation, quarantine, retribution, fairness, etc. (some of these overlap partially with others, but they are more or less distinct justifications).
I think there are people who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation, who should never be allowed to be free, and I don't see the point in paying to keep them locked up for decades, so we might as well kill them. But the existence of errors in the process is inevitable, and the fact that there is no possibility of recourse after execution is a valid point, as is the fact that, at least the way we do it, it's arguably cheaper to lock them up until they die of natural causes than it is to kill them.
It's not arguably cheaper, it's demonstratively and definitively cheaper by leaps and bounds.
Yes, but they should be fun FIRST. I'm with you on the 'exploring the use of the medium for artistic expression' point, but just as a painting exists to be viewed (and thus should, on some level, be visually pleasing) and music exists to be heard (and thus should, on some level, be audiotorially pleasing), a game exists to be played (and thus should, on some level, be FUN to play).
Paintings which break this rule and are not visually pleasing are little more than novelties that are soon forgotten (see any number of pieces in abstract art). Same for music (who actually listens to the things Cage did to pianos?). If I want engaging narrative alone, I've got any number of superior novelists and film directors, who do a far better job than any game I've ever played on that single aspect.
They're written from the point of view of the person who mashed word parts together to coin them.
A-gnosis-ic -- describing something/someone that/who has no knowledge (of a god) A-theus-ist -- refers to a person who believes there is no god
Sure, word meanings can (and do) change, but as coinages that's what the damn words meant. If you want to arbitrarily change them, that's fine, but stop pretending that's not what you're doing.
he looks cool on TV and poses for memetastic photos a lot so he's justified.
I'm sorry, did you have a better standard in mind? Because I'm open to suggestions, but until I hear some I'm going to keep photoshopping these image macros of the president.
government should force one person to shove their religion out of the way so that they can be compelled by the Federal government to pay for another persons pills and abortions.
Government should force one person to shove their beliefs out of the way so that they can be compelled by the Federal government to pay for another person's wars, assassinations, support of brutal dictatorships in foreign countries, farming subsidies, etc. Government should never take money from one person to pay some other person's business loans, blood money, hit fees, etc.
In other words, get the fuck over yourself you whiny little shit. The federal government does lots of things lots of us don't like, and that lots of us consider equal to, if not worse than, abortion (alright, farm subsidies aren't that bad, but assassination of citizens without due process? interrogation by torture? extraordinary rendition?).
I have a degree in computer science with a minor in mathematics. I've spent the past 8 years out of college writing software that does billions of dollars in transactions.
Do you have a ten-inch penis too?
I voted R/R. Yet, I must be one of the ignorant masses, since you understand everything.
Hey, if it walks like a duck...
Point being, your fancy schmancy degree is worth the paper it's printed on, but has nothing to do with whether or not you're an ignorant fool. Waving it around as evidence that you're not is an appeal to authority at best ("The people I paid tens of thousands of dollars to say so say I'm not an idiot! SEE!"), and at worst is a total non-sequitur (lots of morons get degrees and live very successful lives, but they're still morons). Either way, the act of waving it around (and the implication that you expect anyone to be impressed) lends credence to the view that you are in fact an ignorant fool.
Repeated sequences are expected in actual random noise. The question is how long/frequent are they? The 'correct' values are easily calculable (and left as an exercise to the reader), along with the probability of the message being encrypted with a OTP (or rather, the probability that the ciphertext is consistent with a OTP).
Slashdot Mirror
"We have deserts in America too....we just don't live there!" __Screaming Sammy Kinison
Dallas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, etc.
That's a definite lie. I've never had anything but quad-band GSM phones (Galaxy S1 atm), and they've all created noise in my speakers on incoming calls/texts.
Probably not, as patent applications are higher now than 30 years ago.
Step 1: Clip bird's wings so he can't fly.
Step 2: Build bird a quadricopter.
Step 3:
Step 4: Oh god the birds are attacking!
LIES!
Polygraphs aren't used as lie-detectors (by any one competent). They're used to trick people into confessing (like all interrogation techniques).
When I was at LANL (2006) they didn't require them for clearance (and most of the cleared staff scientists I knew outright stated they would have refused them for exactly the reason you point out), but they did offer it as an option for "expedited clearance."
I wonder if they make whale sauce the same way they make fish sauce...
Have...have you ever SMELLED crocodile dung?
You've never heard of Hollywood accounting have you...
Are you saying there's a goat on the lam?
It costs a lot less than that to walk free from manslaughter.
When "BP" has to spend 180 days in prison like a regular person convicted of manslaughter then I'll believe it.
I'd settle for a fine equal to 180 days gross revenue (effectively the same).
"X offers 50% off!" would be nothing but a slashvertisment if it wasn't O'Reilly, one of the few publishers who really understand the geek market.
It's still nothing but a slashvertisement. It's just one I'm not that upset about as I go to decide if I want to add any of the Perl ebooks to my existing paper set...
You CAN say fuck on the internet. You know that, right?
There are two reasons for having punishment for crimes. The first is to prevent a convict from committing further crimes by physically preventing them access (incarceration). The second is to prevent future criminals by deterrent. The latter is a complete joke, as deterrents have fundamental requirements to be successful which include: They must be swift, sure and severe. This is a natural extensions of deterrence. The heaviest emphasis must be placed on sureness, and the least emphasis is placed on severity. In fact in many cases, the severity of the punishment has little effect on recidivism or crime rate in general. Our legal system fails because punishment is far from sure. Our legal tenet of letting 10 guilty men go free so as to avoid one innocent man being wrongly convicted is deeply flawed. The problem is one of social good. How much harm does one innocent man being punished cause, vs how much harm does not catching and punishing all criminals cause. Much of our crime problem has to do with criminals not believing they will be caught. Every year, many people are murdered, and property crimes [fbi.gov] are out of control. In 2010 alone there were more than 9 million property crimes in the U.S. That's one crime for every 35 people
I'm going to have to scream bullshit, though that's a mild exaggeration. You've missed reality by a wide margin though. First, crime is not out of control-- crime is at historic lows. The world is safer now than it has been in decades, for both violent and property crimes. There are not just fewer crimes, but there are also far more people in jail than ever before, both in absolute and per capita terms. In other words, you are less likely to be the victim of a crime and you are more likely to be convicted for committing a crime, than at any time in the last few decades.
Second, there are a long list of other reasons to have punishments for crimes. You're guilty of espousing a false dichotomy so absurd it barely warrants rebuttal. Deterrent, restraint, rehabilitation, quarantine, retribution, fairness, etc. (some of these overlap partially with others, but they are more or less distinct justifications).
I think there are people who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation, who should never be allowed to be free, and I don't see the point in paying to keep them locked up for decades, so we might as well kill them. But the existence of errors in the process is inevitable, and the fact that there is no possibility of recourse after execution is a valid point, as is the fact that, at least the way we do it, it's arguably cheaper to lock them up until they die of natural causes than it is to kill them.
It's not arguably cheaper, it's demonstratively and definitively cheaper by leaps and bounds.
Which measure of inflation? Consumer inflation? Money supply inflation?
Probably better to go with 'As a percent of disposable income,' or 'Films consumed (legally) per capita.'
Yes, but they should be fun FIRST. I'm with you on the 'exploring the use of the medium for artistic expression' point, but just as a painting exists to be viewed (and thus should, on some level, be visually pleasing) and music exists to be heard (and thus should, on some level, be audiotorially pleasing), a game exists to be played (and thus should, on some level, be FUN to play).
Paintings which break this rule and are not visually pleasing are little more than novelties that are soon forgotten (see any number of pieces in abstract art). Same for music (who actually listens to the things Cage did to pianos?). If I want engaging narrative alone, I've got any number of superior novelists and film directors, who do a far better job than any game I've ever played on that single aspect.
They're written from the point of view of the person who mashed word parts together to coin them.
A-gnosis-ic -- describing something/someone that/who has no knowledge (of a god)
A-theus-ist -- refers to a person who believes there is no god
Sure, word meanings can (and do) change, but as coinages that's what the damn words meant. If you want to arbitrarily change them, that's fine, but stop pretending that's not what you're doing.
he looks cool on TV and poses for memetastic photos a lot so he's justified.
I'm sorry, did you have a better standard in mind? Because I'm open to suggestions, but until I hear some I'm going to keep photoshopping these image macros of the president.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner.
It's far more commonly two sheep and a wolf which is just as unfair to the wolf as the original scenario was for the sheep.
On second thought, maybe facile animal metaphors aren't the best models for political systems...
government should force one person to shove their religion out of the way so that they can be compelled by the Federal government to pay for another persons pills and abortions.
Government should force one person to shove their beliefs out of the way so that they can be compelled by the Federal government to pay for another person's wars, assassinations, support of brutal dictatorships in foreign countries, farming subsidies, etc. Government should never take money from one person to pay some other person's business loans, blood money, hit fees, etc.
In other words, get the fuck over yourself you whiny little shit. The federal government does lots of things lots of us don't like, and that lots of us consider equal to, if not worse than, abortion (alright, farm subsidies aren't that bad, but assassination of citizens without due process? interrogation by torture? extraordinary rendition?).
I have a degree in computer science with a minor in mathematics. I've spent the past 8 years out of college writing software that does billions of dollars in transactions.
Do you have a ten-inch penis too?
I voted R/R. Yet, I must be one of the ignorant masses, since you understand everything.
Hey, if it walks like a duck...
Point being, your fancy schmancy degree is worth the paper it's printed on, but has nothing to do with whether or not you're an ignorant fool. Waving it around as evidence that you're not is an appeal to authority at best ("The people I paid tens of thousands of dollars to say so say I'm not an idiot! SEE!"), and at worst is a total non-sequitur (lots of morons get degrees and live very successful lives, but they're still morons). Either way, the act of waving it around (and the implication that you expect anyone to be impressed) lends credence to the view that you are in fact an ignorant fool.
Repeated sequences are expected in actual random noise. The question is how long/frequent are they? The 'correct' values are easily calculable (and left as an exercise to the reader), along with the probability of the message being encrypted with a OTP (or rather, the probability that the ciphertext is consistent with a OTP).
5/5 Made me laugh unnaturally loudly in the middle of a quiet coffee shop. Would decode again.