Unlike most of my countrymen (and a surprising number of posters here), I'm not stupid enough to think that one party is less corrupt and power-hungry than the other.
Unfortunately, most those who do realize the fact still fail to reach the obvious logical conclusion and dutifully continue voting for these two parties, perpetuating the situation.
isn't it odd that many traditional, ancient rituals suggest that girls and boys reach "adulthood" at 12 and 13 respectively, ages at which today almost all children have passed puberty
(1) "today" (emphasis mine), and (2) entered puberty, not "passed" it (they're still growing). That said, I am not familiar with "many" rituals, so I can only comment on some. In the Jewish tradition 13/12 is the age at which a person is considered responsible for their actions, whether it coincided with puberty at that time is speculation.
This suggests that the data used in that (and other studies that show similar things) is either anomalous over that time period or subject to bad methodology
If several independent studies reach the same conclusions, which is inconsistent with "ancient rituals" there is a possibility of all the studies being flawed but a much more likely explanation is a misrepresentation of the rituals.
Now, if you have better sources, by all means post them. Otherwise, here is what I was able to find on the subject:
There is an interesting page with information at the Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health (amazing...) but you have to be careful when reading and interpreting it as they conflate published research and "student papers" (not to mention the "how not to make a web site" theme). The information suggests that the onset of puberty in the 19th and early 20th centuries was definitely later than it is today.
A Medscape article states that "... the age of menarche has been declining from the early 1800s until the 1950s" and gives a long list of citations to support it.
There's an interesting article that purports to explain the discrepancy with the "ancient rituals" though. It states: "Disease and poor nutrition became more common as humans settled, causing puberty to be delayed. Modern hygiene, nutrition and medicine have allowed the age of menarche to fall to its original range.". I am not necessarily agreeing with this premise but it is one way of addressing the issue.
As I said above, if you disagree, feel free to refute.
the suggestion the other poster makes is that until recently medicine did a poor job of identifying puberty
In girls, menarche is commonly viewed as the "central event" of puberty. As a parent of a teenage girl I can tell you that it is pretty hard to misidentify.
According to everything I can find, the earliest age that Catholicism ever allowed a girl to marry at was 12, which while very young is almost never prepubescent. So please provide a reference to your claim.
"Never" is a very strong word, not to mention incorrect.
B) Very readable in sunlight D) Has decent-ish specs.
A bit off topic. I was browsing the Anadtech ~13" laptop reviews. Seems that one has to compromise on either decent performance with good battery life (Asus UL30vt, UL30jt, U30jc) or a decent screen. Can't have both. Sigh.
the source code that they provide is not enough to build a complete Windows system, and the license does not permit building it, only reviewing it, so this only lets you find (but not fix) accidental flaws, not malicious ones.
If I were in charge of an internal security agency, I would be more concerned about running an OS containing back doors or exploits than to try and exploit them myself. To that effect, I would insist on being able to build the OS from sources using a compiler that is known to be uncompromised (built it from source too). No other arrangement will guarantee that the copies I am running behave exactly like the source code says.
If the FSB agreed to the terms that you mentioned, they are not doing their work.
Five: a C&D letter is just that, a letter. I am within my rights to send you a letter ordering you to cease and desist wiping your butt. You are within your rights to tell me where to shove it. However, if there's a small chance of my C&D intimidating you into compliance, what do I have to lose?
Six: If they decide to sue, it is no longer only about who is right and who is wrong but also (mainly?) about who can afford the legal proceedings.
And you obviously know too little about English to not be American.
The rules of association football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other versions of football played at the time. The word soccer is a colloquial abbreviation of association (from assoc.) and first appeared in the 1880s. An early usage found in an English 1892 periodical. The word is sometimes credited to Charles Wreford Brown, an Oxford student said to have been fond of shortened forms such as brekkers for breakfast and rugger for rugby football. (See Oxford -er) Clive Toye noted that even English people called the game "soccer" interchangably with "football" until the second half of the 20th century. "A quirk of British culture is the permanent need to familiarize names by shortening them.... Toye [said] 'They took the third, fourth and fifth letters of Association and called it SOCcer.'" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_association_football
Soccer's etymology is not American but British. It comes from an abbreviation for Association Football, the official name of the sport (for those of you who have never heard the team "Association Football" before, it was named after the Football Association, which still governs English soccer, to differentiate itself from the other major type of football, Rugby Football, which was named after the Rugby School. FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, is French for the International Federation of Association Football... F-I-F-A). For obvious reasons, in the 1880s and 1890s, English newspapers couldn't use the first three letters of Association as an abbreviation in their pages, so they took the next syllable, S-O-C. With the British penchant for adding "-er" at the end of words: punter, footballer, copper, and, of course, nicknaming rugby, "rugger," the word "soccer" was soon born, over a hundred years ago, here in England, the home of soccer. -- http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html
> In sporting events, where a footballer makes a reckless challenge, it's almost inevitable that the victim of his foul will track him down and set his house on fire.
The "victim" is not anonymous, he's as visible as the footballer.
> And in local bowling leagues, if someone wins and gloats too much about it, his opponents are bound to find his workplace and tell his boss/coworkers that he's a paedophile.
His opponents are not anonymous, they are as visible as the bowler.
> And in paintball, if someone hits someone else with a well placed shot, you can bet their SO will be hearing all sorts of terrible things about them before you know it.
The one who go shot is not anonymous, he's as visible as the footballer.
> That's why in all those things everyone plays anonymously and in masks. Or not.
That's the thing. On the forums, the posters will be visible, the lurkers will wear masks.
> But that's all irrelevant isn't it. It's just the internet that's full of psychotic nutters, they don't exist in real life.
The Internet is just one facet of real life. The "psychotic nutters" exist. There are not many of them, but people do get harassing calls, anonymous death threats and repeated key scratches.
How, exactly, is that any more "chilling" to free speech than any real-life face-to-face interaction with another person is "chilled" by the risk of being punched in the nose if you act like a total douchebag?
The difference lies in the asymmetrical nature of the beast.
Namely, if the person punches you in the nose not because you "act like a total douchebag" but because he wants to silence your message, you have the option to punch him back. In the case of the signed-with-real-name post, your antagonist knows who you are but you have no idea who he, or they, might be.
Let me give you a short example on how copyright works.
I see some junior politician using doublespeak on TV. Since my English teacher had an unorthodox sense of humour, I still subconsciously associate that language with puns, so I notice a connection between the politician's name and the situation in question. It seems to be a halfway decent joke to me, even if a little elaborate, so I write it down and, when we next meet in a bar, I tell it to you. We both have a good laugh about it. 25 years later, that same politician, now a member of parliament (or an equivalent), is on the news again. You see it, recall that joke, and tell it to your son. You both have a good laugh about it. 25 years later, that same politician, now a president/PM (or some equivalent), is on the news again. Your son sees it, recalls the joke and tells it to his son. They both have a good laugh about it. 25 years later, an obituary for that politician is on the news. Your grandson sees it while drinking with friends in a sports bar, remembers the joke and tells it to his friends. They all have a good laugh about it. Two weeks later my estate sues him for a public performance of a copyrighted work.
Now, I admit this is a simplified example because, assuming that the current copyright terms of life+70 will not get extended (a pretty tall assumption), it would not be your grandson but your great-great-grandson who will get sued.
Copyright is a way of locking down culture for the purpose of monetizing it for 3 to 6 generations.
Slashdot Mirror
No no no, his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries.
Most humans eventually turn into skeletons (unless e.g. cremated)
Yes there is. Two words: special interests.
Because it creates a venue for funneling money to "special interests".
I used to be a Google Maps user (not the mobile kind though) until Google, in their infinite wisdom, decided to scrap the "saved locations" feature.
When users started complaining on the help forum and elswhere, Google chose to ignore them.
Needless to say, I now go to Bing for driving directions.
Unfortunately, most those who do realize the fact still fail to reach the obvious logical conclusion and dutifully continue voting for these two parties, perpetuating the situation.
(1) "today" (emphasis mine), and (2) entered puberty, not "passed" it (they're still growing).
That said, I am not familiar with "many" rituals, so I can only comment on some. In the Jewish tradition 13/12 is the age at which a person is considered responsible for their actions, whether it coincided with puberty at that time is speculation.
If several independent studies reach the same conclusions, which is inconsistent with "ancient rituals" there is a possibility of all the studies being flawed but a much more likely explanation is a misrepresentation of the rituals.
Now, if you have better sources, by all means post them. Otherwise, here is what I was able to find on the subject:
There is an interesting page with information at the Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health (amazing...) but you have to be careful when reading and interpreting it as they conflate published research and "student papers" (not to mention the "how not to make a web site" theme). The information suggests that the onset of puberty in the 19th and early 20th centuries was definitely later than it is today.
A Medscape article states that "... the age of menarche has been declining from the early 1800s until the 1950s" and gives a long list of citations to support it.
There's an interesting article that purports to explain the discrepancy with the "ancient rituals" though. It states: "Disease and poor nutrition became more common as humans settled, causing puberty to be delayed. Modern hygiene, nutrition and medicine have allowed the age of menarche to fall to its original range.". I am not necessarily agreeing with this premise but it is one way of addressing the issue.
As I said above, if you disagree, feel free to refute.
In girls, menarche is commonly viewed as the "central event" of puberty. As a parent of a teenage girl I can tell you that it is pretty hard to misidentify.
"Never" is a very strong word, not to mention incorrect.
How many readers googled this word immediately after reading the parent post?
Bad password. Too common.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
-- Samuel Johnson
puts("Hello, world!"); /*is best*/
I assume you have some statistics to back your claims. Do you mind sharing them with us?
Most engineering is physics.
Better than the other way around.
A bit off topic.
I was browsing the Anadtech ~13" laptop reviews.
Seems that one has to compromise on either decent performance with good battery life (Asus UL30vt, UL30jt, U30jc) or a decent screen. Can't have both. Sigh.
If I were in charge of an internal security agency, I would be more concerned about running an OS containing back doors or exploits than to try and exploit them myself. To that effect, I would insist on being able to build the OS from sources using a compiler that is known to be uncompromised (built it from source too). No other arrangement will guarantee that the copies I am running behave exactly like the source code says.
If the FSB agreed to the terms that you mentioned, they are not doing their work.
...
Five: a C&D letter is just that, a letter. I am within my rights to send you a letter ordering you to cease and desist wiping your butt. You are within your rights to tell me where to shove it. However, if there's a small chance of my C&D intimidating you into compliance, what do I have to lose?
Six: If they decide to sue, it is no longer only about who is right and who is wrong but also (mainly?) about who can afford the legal proceedings.
The rules of association football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other versions of football played at the time. The word soccer is a colloquial abbreviation of association (from assoc.) and first appeared in the 1880s. An early usage found in an English 1892 periodical. The word is sometimes credited to Charles Wreford Brown, an Oxford student said to have been fond of shortened forms such as brekkers for breakfast and rugger for rugby football. (See Oxford -er) Clive Toye noted that even English people called the game "soccer" interchangably with "football" until the second half of the 20th century. "A quirk of British culture is the permanent need to familiarize names by shortening them. ... Toye [said] 'They took the third, fourth and fifth letters of Association and called it SOCcer.'"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_association_football
Soccer's etymology is not American but British. It comes from an abbreviation for Association Football, the official name of the sport (for those of you who have never heard the team "Association Football" before, it was named after the Football Association, which still governs English soccer, to differentiate itself from the other major type of football, Rugby Football, which was named after the Rugby School. FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, is French for the International Federation of Association Football... F-I-F-A). For obvious reasons, in the 1880s and 1890s, English newspapers couldn't use the first three letters of Association as an abbreviation in their pages, so they took the next syllable, S-O-C. With the British penchant for adding "-er" at the end of words: punter, footballer, copper, and, of course, nicknaming rugby, "rugger," the word "soccer" was soon born, over a hundred years ago, here in England, the home of soccer.
-- http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html
What laptop is that?
em in the body stopped being novel years ago.
Now it is just annoying.
> In sporting events, where a footballer makes a reckless challenge, it's almost inevitable that the victim of his foul will track him down and set his house on fire.
The "victim" is not anonymous, he's as visible as the footballer.
> And in local bowling leagues, if someone wins and gloats too much about it, his opponents are bound to find his workplace and tell his boss/coworkers that he's a paedophile.
His opponents are not anonymous, they are as visible as the bowler.
> And in paintball, if someone hits someone else with a well placed shot, you can bet their SO will be hearing all sorts of terrible things about them before you know it.
The one who go shot is not anonymous, he's as visible as the footballer.
> That's why in all those things everyone plays anonymously and in masks. Or not.
That's the thing. On the forums, the posters will be visible, the lurkers will wear masks.
> But that's all irrelevant isn't it. It's just the internet that's full of psychotic nutters, they don't exist in real life.
The Internet is just one facet of real life. The "psychotic nutters" exist. There are not many of them, but people do get harassing calls, anonymous death threats and repeated key scratches.
The most publicized is anti-abortion violence, but there are other incidents.
The difference lies in the asymmetrical nature of the beast.
Namely, if the person punches you in the nose not because you "act like a total douchebag" but because he wants to silence your message, you have the option to punch him back. In the case of the signed-with-real-name post, your antagonist knows who you are but you have no idea who he, or they, might be.
Let me give you a short example on how copyright works.
I see some junior politician using doublespeak on TV.
Since my English teacher had an unorthodox sense of humour, I still subconsciously associate that language with puns, so I notice a connection between the politician's name and the situation in question.
It seems to be a halfway decent joke to me, even if a little elaborate, so I write it down and, when we next meet in a bar, I tell it to you. We both have a good laugh about it.
25 years later, that same politician, now a member of parliament (or an equivalent), is on the news again.
You see it, recall that joke, and tell it to your son. You both have a good laugh about it.
25 years later, that same politician, now a president/PM (or some equivalent), is on the news again.
Your son sees it, recalls the joke and tells it to his son. They both have a good laugh about it.
25 years later, an obituary for that politician is on the news.
Your grandson sees it while drinking with friends in a sports bar, remembers the joke and tells it to his friends. They all have a good laugh about it.
Two weeks later my estate sues him for a public performance of a copyrighted work.
Now, I admit this is a simplified example because, assuming that the current copyright terms of life+70 will not get extended (a pretty tall assumption), it would not be your grandson but your great-great-grandson who will get sued.
Copyright is a way of locking down culture for the purpose of monetizing it for 3 to 6 generations.
There is something to be said for BB Code.