She's the one alleging rape, so it is her word against his. Now, if he were the one that was making the allegations, then it would be his word against hers.
You're not helping anybody by playing word games like this.
And no, there's no evidence of any attempted wrongdoing by him. She says that it is, but he has a black eye, and she has what looks like Indian burn, and that's not necessarily evidence of anything without more information. He could have a black eye from something else, and Indian burn isn't just something that one gets when somebody tries to rape one.
I realize that a lot of people here are going based upon emotion, but I'm not seeing anything here that would warrant us to jump to that conclusion. It certainly is possible, but she could also be trying to ruin his reputation for some other reason.
So, she posts pictures of his entire face, and posts partial photos of her, that don't demonstrate with any likelihood attempted rape?
Now, it might be that her allegations are true, but she's running the risk of being sued for libel. I don't get why she's comfortable taking this public, but not reporting it to the authorities in a proper manner and letting them handle it.
The website owners and advertises screwed things up for themselves by setting up a system that made it virtually impossible for people browsing the web to opt out. So, measures like this became necessary. At this point, you have to go to extremes if you don't want to be tracked, and there is no informed consent for most people, you have to be constantly following their methods if you wish to opt out. And do things like blocking 3rd party cookies, javascript, flash, constantly clearing your cache etc.
I'd rather that Mozilla not need to do this, but it's abundantly clear that the advertising industry will not stop of its own accord. We people that browse the web didn't start this war, the advertisers did, and until we get a consistent way of opting into all this tracking, this kind of method is going to be necessary.
As opposed to the advertisers opting you in without your consent? All MS was doing there was making sure that people had to opt in, rather than being tracked by god only knows whom all over the net, without any particular way of knowing who was doing it.
Indeed, considering the various sociopathic methods that advertisers are willing to enact to get their message heard, regardless of whether the end user wants to hear it, I say fuck them. The DNT wouldn't be necessary if they were satisfied with an opt in set up or we had any idea as to who the people doing the tracking were. But, that isn't the case.
They've given us malware in ad banners that use code hosted on 3rd party sites, those annoying flash ads that cover content and randomly crash, the intellitext that randomly disrupts our browsing and not to mention those hidden ads that get activated when you click on seemingly blank space on a site.
I'd personally suggest that they made their bed, and now it's time for them to lie in it. But, I think they might take that as permission to lie to me if they're actually in bed.
Ultimately, they are more likely to buy Android because it is cheaper. Apple doesn't even sell phones in that range. I'm not sure what the current cost of the iPhones is, but last time I was in the market for a phone, they didn't have anything for under $500. I would assume that's changed, but who knows.
The point is that you're making a vague tautology there. You can't separate the phone from the OS and say that it's because of one or the other. Ultimately, Android is less expensive, because it's used in less expensive phones than iOS is.
That's not really a fair time frame to choose. XP was never meant to still be in use. But, with the excessive wait for Vista and Vista being a flop, MS had to extend support for XP beyond the intended period of time.
And there's no particular assurance that older games will run on newer versions of Windows due to general instability and hardware manufacturers don't always QA their hardware for ancient versions of DirectX either.
And don't forget that MS does sometimes drop interfaces from DirectX or change them.
No, we want to take that into account so that women aren't given an unfair advantage.
It would be wonderful to be able to leave the workforce for a few years without losing ground on the people that have been there paying their dues and learning how the system works and generally contributing. Unfortunately, our biology is such that the brain is typically in much better shape during ones late 20s and early 30s where one has a balance between youth and experience. Throwing away half of it, is going to limit the contributions one is capable of making at that level.
If you're not actually acknowledging the reality and trying to get the most accurate view of what's happening possible, then any solution you try to bring to the table is likely to cause even more unforeseen consequences than if you bothered to study it correctly in the first place.
I can't recall the last time I heard anybody complaining about the PC market being fragmented. It's standard for Apple to use fragmentation as an argument against their opposition, because they want to make all the decisions for the end users. It's easy to eliminate fragmentation when you limit the option to things that you've chosen.
That's a false dilemma you've got there. Android includes tools to manage the fragmentation. If you're having to individually target particular handsets, you're doing it wrong.
People buy Android, because they don't want to be overcharged for Apple's iOS walled garden, and don't want to be limited to only Apple's selections. I'm sure that some people buy Android because it's less expensive, but that's a perfectly legitimate reason for choosing it. Just because you're an Apple fanbois doesn't make it any less legitimate to remain cost conscious.
There's less API versioning to deal with because Apple controls the platform and removes support for older devices periodically. Android will let you sell to customers no matter how long they've owned the device, as long as it supports the API calls necessary to run your app.
It's a shame that they cheaped out on the refund period, going from 24 hours when I got mine a few years back, to only 15 minutes at the present. 15 minutes is insufficient time to evaluate any application with any thoroughness. Some apps take longer than that to just run through the first time.
I'm still using a Nexus One, and the only reason that I'm going to be upgrading in the near future, is storage capacity. Having a larger screen would be nice, but the internal storage capacity is insufficient for running more than a few apps at any given time. And I often have to uninstall something in order to upgrade it due to space limitations.
Fragmentation has never been the issue that Apple suggests that it is. I'd much rather deal with that and get to make some UI choices, than be locked into Apple's way of doing thing.
You wouldn't target 4.0.x, unless of course there's a feature that isn't in previous versions that you need. For the most part, the 2.x versions have most of the stuff people need, targeting a newer version should really only be done when you need to. There's no point in throwing out users if you don't have to.
The bigger issue with the older phones is the storage size and the amount of RAM available.
The solution to this is in the legislature, not in the court room. One of the worst outcomes is for people to get off the hook because they're cute, personable or have a lawyer that's good at convincing the jury that breaking the law isn't such a big deal.
Bad example. Some of the evidence in the OJ Simpson case had been tampered with, such as the bloody socks. I have no doubt that they reached the right verdict, even though I believe that OJ had something to do with it.
No, they can't. The problem is that it's difficult to establish the difference between not believing the burden of proof was met, and not believing that the crime exists.
When I was on jury duty a few years back, we had to explicitly promise not to do it, because it violated the rights of the participants.
I've been to China and you're completely full of shit. They have no opposition party. The last time somebody tried to start one, it lasted about a day, before the individual was thrown in prison. The only question about whom they allow to be the Premier is who can earn the votes between the right and left wings of the party.
If Obama is a dictator and suppressing political opposition, then he's the one of the worst ever. I mean, for God sake, he can rarely get anything onto his desk to sign, because the opposition is so oppressed, that they block legislative action on pretty much everything.
Jury nullification is not the right thing. It breaks the rules that the prosecution and defense agree to when they go to court. Opening things up to jury nullification means that the defense just shifts its strategy to convincing the jury that the charges shouldn't exist, and to let the defendant off because he or she is a good person. Rather than because there's insufficient evidence to convict.
The court system is problematic enough as it is, adding that unpredictability to what is already deeply problematic isn't going to help things. It's just going to make it easier for rich people to get off completely.
Doubtful, you'd have to replace the entire wall when you no longer wanted to hear through it. What's more, it would work both ways, which means that not only would you hear your baby, but your baby would hear whatever nasty stuff you're doing next door.
A baby monitor OTOH, can be carried from room to room as need be, and can only be heard in one direction. The main disadvantage would be the batteries or the possibility of eaves dropping.
It hides formatting information in whitespace, something that no sane person would do.
It also ends lines at the new line rather than at a;, which means that you're in a position where you can end up with long lines at times, where normally, you would just hit enter and continue on the next line.
In general though, any language that depends upon white space for anything other than separating elements is just asking for trouble.
Perl has a bad rap mainly because systems adminstrators have abused it to hack out a quick solution. But, really, any language can have that happen. There's nothing inherently evil about Perl.
Python and Basic, OTOH, both have some pretty evil formatting requirements.
It's not a useless right. The 5th only applies to self incrimination, and incrimination of a spouse IIRC, and it's not useless. If you could just refuse to testify about anything at all using the fifth, then court proceedings would often go nowhere as witnesses would refuse to testify about anything that was mildly inconvenient.
Nope, I'm sorry, but American English is common to both America and Canada. It's really more like North American English, as the features of the two are very similar. Sure, there are regionalisms, but English itself doesn't vary that much between the two. Most of the time to somebody from elsewhere on the planet, you wouldn't know whether a person is Canadian or English based upon speaking alone.
Slashdot Mirror
She's the one alleging rape, so it is her word against his. Now, if he were the one that was making the allegations, then it would be his word against hers.
You're not helping anybody by playing word games like this.
And no, there's no evidence of any attempted wrongdoing by him. She says that it is, but he has a black eye, and she has what looks like Indian burn, and that's not necessarily evidence of anything without more information. He could have a black eye from something else, and Indian burn isn't just something that one gets when somebody tries to rape one.
I realize that a lot of people here are going based upon emotion, but I'm not seeing anything here that would warrant us to jump to that conclusion. It certainly is possible, but she could also be trying to ruin his reputation for some other reason.
So, she posts pictures of his entire face, and posts partial photos of her, that don't demonstrate with any likelihood attempted rape?
Now, it might be that her allegations are true, but she's running the risk of being sued for libel. I don't get why she's comfortable taking this public, but not reporting it to the authorities in a proper manner and letting them handle it.
Which is as it should be.
The website owners and advertises screwed things up for themselves by setting up a system that made it virtually impossible for people browsing the web to opt out. So, measures like this became necessary. At this point, you have to go to extremes if you don't want to be tracked, and there is no informed consent for most people, you have to be constantly following their methods if you wish to opt out. And do things like blocking 3rd party cookies, javascript, flash, constantly clearing your cache etc.
I'd rather that Mozilla not need to do this, but it's abundantly clear that the advertising industry will not stop of its own accord. We people that browse the web didn't start this war, the advertisers did, and until we get a consistent way of opting into all this tracking, this kind of method is going to be necessary.
As opposed to the advertisers opting you in without your consent? All MS was doing there was making sure that people had to opt in, rather than being tracked by god only knows whom all over the net, without any particular way of knowing who was doing it.
Indeed, considering the various sociopathic methods that advertisers are willing to enact to get their message heard, regardless of whether the end user wants to hear it, I say fuck them. The DNT wouldn't be necessary if they were satisfied with an opt in set up or we had any idea as to who the people doing the tracking were. But, that isn't the case.
They've given us malware in ad banners that use code hosted on 3rd party sites, those annoying flash ads that cover content and randomly crash, the intellitext that randomly disrupts our browsing and not to mention those hidden ads that get activated when you click on seemingly blank space on a site.
I'd personally suggest that they made their bed, and now it's time for them to lie in it. But, I think they might take that as permission to lie to me if they're actually in bed.
It's arguably better in one very specific way, they find a bug in the base system about once every decade.
But, that's their focus. FreeBSD has a different focus and does quite well in its own area of focus.
That's nonsense.
Ultimately, they are more likely to buy Android because it is cheaper. Apple doesn't even sell phones in that range. I'm not sure what the current cost of the iPhones is, but last time I was in the market for a phone, they didn't have anything for under $500. I would assume that's changed, but who knows.
The point is that you're making a vague tautology there. You can't separate the phone from the OS and say that it's because of one or the other. Ultimately, Android is less expensive, because it's used in less expensive phones than iOS is.
That's not really a fair time frame to choose. XP was never meant to still be in use. But, with the excessive wait for Vista and Vista being a flop, MS had to extend support for XP beyond the intended period of time.
And there's no particular assurance that older games will run on newer versions of Windows due to general instability and hardware manufacturers don't always QA their hardware for ancient versions of DirectX either.
And don't forget that MS does sometimes drop interfaces from DirectX or change them.
No, we want to take that into account so that women aren't given an unfair advantage.
It would be wonderful to be able to leave the workforce for a few years without losing ground on the people that have been there paying their dues and learning how the system works and generally contributing. Unfortunately, our biology is such that the brain is typically in much better shape during ones late 20s and early 30s where one has a balance between youth and experience. Throwing away half of it, is going to limit the contributions one is capable of making at that level.
If you're not actually acknowledging the reality and trying to get the most accurate view of what's happening possible, then any solution you try to bring to the table is likely to cause even more unforeseen consequences than if you bothered to study it correctly in the first place.
And this is somehow different from the PC market?
I can't recall the last time I heard anybody complaining about the PC market being fragmented. It's standard for Apple to use fragmentation as an argument against their opposition, because they want to make all the decisions for the end users. It's easy to eliminate fragmentation when you limit the option to things that you've chosen.
That's a false dilemma you've got there. Android includes tools to manage the fragmentation. If you're having to individually target particular handsets, you're doing it wrong.
People buy Android, because they don't want to be overcharged for Apple's iOS walled garden, and don't want to be limited to only Apple's selections. I'm sure that some people buy Android because it's less expensive, but that's a perfectly legitimate reason for choosing it. Just because you're an Apple fanbois doesn't make it any less legitimate to remain cost conscious.
There's less API versioning to deal with because Apple controls the platform and removes support for older devices periodically. Android will let you sell to customers no matter how long they've owned the device, as long as it supports the API calls necessary to run your app.
It's a shame that they cheaped out on the refund period, going from 24 hours when I got mine a few years back, to only 15 minutes at the present. 15 minutes is insufficient time to evaluate any application with any thoroughness. Some apps take longer than that to just run through the first time.
I'm still using a Nexus One, and the only reason that I'm going to be upgrading in the near future, is storage capacity. Having a larger screen would be nice, but the internal storage capacity is insufficient for running more than a few apps at any given time. And I often have to uninstall something in order to upgrade it due to space limitations.
Fragmentation has never been the issue that Apple suggests that it is. I'd much rather deal with that and get to make some UI choices, than be locked into Apple's way of doing thing.
You wouldn't target 4.0.x, unless of course there's a feature that isn't in previous versions that you need. For the most part, the 2.x versions have most of the stuff people need, targeting a newer version should really only be done when you need to. There's no point in throwing out users if you don't have to.
The bigger issue with the older phones is the storage size and the amount of RAM available.
The term for that is sociopath.
The solution to this is in the legislature, not in the court room. One of the worst outcomes is for people to get off the hook because they're cute, personable or have a lawyer that's good at convincing the jury that breaking the law isn't such a big deal.
Bad example. Some of the evidence in the OJ Simpson case had been tampered with, such as the bloody socks. I have no doubt that they reached the right verdict, even though I believe that OJ had something to do with it.
No, they can't. The problem is that it's difficult to establish the difference between not believing the burden of proof was met, and not believing that the crime exists.
When I was on jury duty a few years back, we had to explicitly promise not to do it, because it violated the rights of the participants.
I've been to China and you're completely full of shit. They have no opposition party. The last time somebody tried to start one, it lasted about a day, before the individual was thrown in prison. The only question about whom they allow to be the Premier is who can earn the votes between the right and left wings of the party.
If Obama is a dictator and suppressing political opposition, then he's the one of the worst ever. I mean, for God sake, he can rarely get anything onto his desk to sign, because the opposition is so oppressed, that they block legislative action on pretty much everything.
Jury nullification is not the right thing. It breaks the rules that the prosecution and defense agree to when they go to court. Opening things up to jury nullification means that the defense just shifts its strategy to convincing the jury that the charges shouldn't exist, and to let the defendant off because he or she is a good person. Rather than because there's insufficient evidence to convict.
The court system is problematic enough as it is, adding that unpredictability to what is already deeply problematic isn't going to help things. It's just going to make it easier for rich people to get off completely.
When it threatens to help people that are too lazy to be rich.
Doubtful, you'd have to replace the entire wall when you no longer wanted to hear through it. What's more, it would work both ways, which means that not only would you hear your baby, but your baby would hear whatever nasty stuff you're doing next door.
A baby monitor OTOH, can be carried from room to room as need be, and can only be heard in one direction. The main disadvantage would be the batteries or the possibility of eaves dropping.
It hides formatting information in whitespace, something that no sane person would do.
It also ends lines at the new line rather than at a ;, which means that you're in a position where you can end up with long lines at times, where normally, you would just hit enter and continue on the next line.
In general though, any language that depends upon white space for anything other than separating elements is just asking for trouble.
Or Python or Basic.
Perl has a bad rap mainly because systems adminstrators have abused it to hack out a quick solution. But, really, any language can have that happen. There's nothing inherently evil about Perl.
Python and Basic, OTOH, both have some pretty evil formatting requirements.
It's not a useless right. The 5th only applies to self incrimination, and incrimination of a spouse IIRC, and it's not useless. If you could just refuse to testify about anything at all using the fifth, then court proceedings would often go nowhere as witnesses would refuse to testify about anything that was mildly inconvenient.
Nope, I'm sorry, but American English is common to both America and Canada. It's really more like North American English, as the features of the two are very similar. Sure, there are regionalisms, but English itself doesn't vary that much between the two. Most of the time to somebody from elsewhere on the planet, you wouldn't know whether a person is Canadian or English based upon speaking alone.