Yes, but it doesn't elicit the response when you most need it to elicit the response. The kind of psychopaths that these tests were intended to catch, are rarely, if ever caught. These are people who don't believe what they were doing was wrong or don't believe that they'll be caught. In either case, there is no stress and so the tests don't detect anything.
Even with the 85-95% that the proponents claim, it's still a worthless test as the 5-15% where it fails are going to be the times when you most need it to be correct. And that's assuming that rate, and I doubt that it's anywhere near that effective.
That's what conspiracy charges are. If you're in for a part then you're in for the whole bit. He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts and chose to continue doing it. Had he chosen to stop doing it or cooperate with the DEA, he wouldn't be in prison.
The moment the DEA approached him he should have consulted with an attorney, if not earlier. It sucks, but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?
AFAIK only in Guangdong and Hong Kong, outside of those regions, nobody uses Cantonese, at least not that I heard. Most business will be done in either the local language or Mandarin.
Those 400m people are mostly in rural areas. Legally all schools are supposed to be conducted in Mandarin, although exceptions are made for foreign language schools as Beijing is keen on having people learn foreign languages.
But, the difficulty level is pretty low. Of the languages I've studied, Mandarin is by far the easiest one to learn. The grammar is astonishingly simple and even the feared characters are mostly a matter of study. If you start with the radicals and skip learning individual characters in favor of whole words, its' not that tough. Most Chinese words are either one character or the newer style which are compounds of 2 or 3 of the older characters. And considering that the PRC has achieved a literacy rate over 85% it's clearly something that's doable for anybody that's willing to put in the effort and time.
Tones, do take some getting used to, but none of the tones in Mandarin are ones that we don't have in English, it's just that they use them differently than we do in English.
I don't personally think that Chinese is likely to be mandatory, however, it is going to be increasingly useful in coming years. Especially the written form that tends to scare people away. But, after a year of looking at them in China, I found after a while that there's a pattern to them, and whenever I see simplified Chinese characters, I get a warm fuzzy feeling that everything is going to be OK.
I used to live a couple hours from there, and it's the only part of China where I would routinely run into people that couldn't speak any Chinese. The local Cantonese is still very strong there, which makes it difficult for those that don't speak Cantonese and can't read and write.
Hong Kong was even worse because if they didn't speak English, they probably wouldn't speak Mandarin and the writing system in use is mainly traditional Chinese rather than the simplified system in use in the PRC.
My Chinese isn't particularly good, but in most of China it was good enough to order food and conduct basic business.
The main issue with translating Chinese characters is that traditionally there are no separations made between words, so the computer has to guess at where the word boundaries are. But, yes, the computer will do better with characters than with pinyin, but really this is an area which is still largely a mess.
There isn't really. The alphabet that's used in Europe is faster to learn than the character set of Chinese characters. But, the Chinese characters each convey far more meaning than a set of words would.
There are pros and cons here, the alphabet is faster to learn to read and write, but it's less efficient to read. Whereas Chinese takes years to learn to read and write, but is substantially more efficient for reading.
My main issue with written Chinese is that they haven't adopted Western style word spacing. Which means that you have to recognize when the words start and stop, which is quite difficult for beginners and those that have poor literacy skills. 90% or so of the time it's the longest possible word containing the characters, but that still leaves about 10% of the time where some of the characters could belong to either of the words.
Still, it's a far more efficient writing system to read than English is.
As somebody who spent a year living in the PRC, I went in wondering the same thing. But the fact of the matter is that their are so many homophones that they would need to invent a new language just to make it work.
The radicals and tones are an essential portion of the language, removing them would be like taking English words and removing the spaces and punctuation marks. It would turn it into a mess.
The radicals themselves are essential to learning to read and write the Chinese language. Romanization systems don't work because there are too many homophones to worry about. And what's more there are hundreds of different Chinese languages out there whose only point of intersection is the written language. Removing that would require teaching 600m or so people a new language and nearly 1.5b people to read and write in a new language.
Stroke order isn't quite as silly as you make it out to be, the stroke order is like it is primarily because you draw the radicals in a certain way, and when those radicals are put into a character they retain their order. This cuts down on the amount of time and energy that it takes to learn to write.
As far as legacy goes, Chinese is far easier than you seem to recognize. Sure, learning the characters is a PITA, but it's not hard, it's just a lot of work. And it's held up remarkably well for millenia. The grammar is simple enough as well.
As far as "the language" goes, Mandarin is just a voice given to silent characters. It's not any easier or harder than any other Chinese language. It has 5 tones, which in some ways is easier than some with more tones, but it means that you spend more time and energy determining which homophone you're dealing with.
Because there's presumably going to be an encrypted signal coming from the car. If you're caught driving a car that has a doctored display, I'm sure there are charges that apply.
Around here even just having an unapproved cover on the license plate is grounds for a citation. If you're doing something like this you're likely looking at prison time.
What I mean is that people use the mouse to scroll around, and not for the rest of it.
And, I don't care how many buttons your mouse has, it does not have more than a keyboard. What's more, only an idiot uses a mouse as a mouse just does not have the level of precision necessary for CAD.
There probably are novices out there that never bothered to learn the short cuts, but anybody that cares about efficiency or precision is going to be using the keyboard almost exclusively.
It's not and people don't typically use a mouse for CAD. Sure a mouse is used, but most of the actual work is done via keyboard shortcuts because it's both more accurate and faster.
That would be a constitutional violation. As a state, they can't place restrictions on where items are sourced within the US. The reason that the Federal Government controls the regulation of interstate commerce is specifically to prevent that from happening.
If they're doing it, it's merely because nobody has cared enough to challenge it in court.
You're still responsible for driving without the necessary license plates. It's not the lack of license plates that gets you in trouble, it's the driving on public roads without an appropriate set of license plates that gets you in trouble.
And, what's more, if you're caught doing it as part of a conspiracy, you're facing more than just the civil infraction for the license plate being obscured.
Driving without plates is already an offense. I'm not sure why they would need to specifically make driving with broken plates illegal.
Realistically, if you're driving around with a broken plate, the police will pull you over and verify things. And probably issue a citation for not having the proper plate on the car.
However, unlike ordinary plates, it sounds like the police would still know what the plate number was, even if the plate itself had a broken display.
That would be one of my main concerns. The other would be a clerical error or bug listing a car that I'm driving in as being stolen or having expired plates.
I kind of like the idea, but I'm concerned that this will wind up being one of those things that never gets perfected because they can't get close enough without horrible bugs and abuses of power.
As far as privacy goes, this isn't really that much worse than what we already have. Which is huge numbers of license plate readers having their information fed into unregulated databases; because obvious a lack of right to privacy in public is the same thing as permitting all of that information to be compiled without any monitoring.
I take it you're not a hunter and don't do any fishing. Even in the 21st century we don't really have the luxury of biding our time if we're depending upon that next deer for sustenance. The only reason why hunters obsess about the rack size on that deer is because they have alternate sources for food.
Likewise, a fish finder will give you an indication that there are fish there, but if they're not interested in biting, it's a moot point.
Obesity isn't supposed to be adaptive. Humans evolved during a time when we couldn't know when our next meal was coming and so we go to be very efficient at storing the excess fat. The problem is that people generally eat 3 times a day, or more, regardless of whether or not they're hungry. And when they do eat, they tend to eat more than what they need to survive.
In the conditions we evolved in, the effect over all is that we wouldn't wind up obese because we wouldn't get to over eat endlessly, at some point we'd spend a period starving and burn the calories.
Also, our ancestors spent a lot less time with butt planted in chair, if the wanted to sit, most of the time they would just crouch. Even today, it's common for people in the developing world to crouch for long periods of time.
That's what I was curious about. Obviously, there's something more going on here, because it's not the amount of food you eat, or even the type, that determines if you get fat, it's what sort of surplus or deficit you're running after the food gets digested that ultimately matters.
And more efficient or less efficient bacteria would only dictate how much food you would have to consume to absorb a certain number of calories, not how much of it winds up being stored as fat.
No, they were designed and built for the purpose of killing and destroying. Honestly, that apologistics makes me sick.
The devices were invented for the express purpose of killing things, nobody would have invented such an expensive device otherwise. And yes the intent of the action has everything to do with it, why else would they have invented the things in the first place? Target practice as a sport didn't exist until well after the invention of the firearm, it was not the cause of the invention of the firearm.
Guns are never toys. I don't care if you're only using them to shoot targets, they are a tool. A tool that's designed to kill and destroy. Yes, a lot of people use them for target practice (destroying), hunting (killing) and self defense (killing); but ultimately the use is destructive.
If you want a toy gun, get one of those models that shoots soft pellets, and make sure not to use them without appropriate eye protection.
My dad likes guns, but that doesn't mean that he should engage in stupid practices with it or is any less dead if something happens as a result.
Died doing something somebody loved, is something people say when the consequences of their own stupidity led to their own demise. I've never heard somebody saying that about a book lover who died reading a book. The main reason being that there's no point, you don't need to rationalize the death.
The larger ones are going to be somewhat easier to control as they have more mass and aren't as likely to move randomly with small air currents. But, with that comes more inertia when they do move, which means that if you screw up, it takes more to get them back under control. And you don't have the option of just letting them crash.
I'm guessing that a lot of people don't realize how much force are in the blades of a helicopter that size. I know I've never thought about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it doesn't elicit the response when you most need it to elicit the response. The kind of psychopaths that these tests were intended to catch, are rarely, if ever caught. These are people who don't believe what they were doing was wrong or don't believe that they'll be caught. In either case, there is no stress and so the tests don't detect anything.
Even with the 85-95% that the proponents claim, it's still a worthless test as the 5-15% where it fails are going to be the times when you most need it to be correct. And that's assuming that rate, and I doubt that it's anywhere near that effective.
That's what conspiracy charges are. If you're in for a part then you're in for the whole bit. He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts and chose to continue doing it. Had he chosen to stop doing it or cooperate with the DEA, he wouldn't be in prison.
The moment the DEA approached him he should have consulted with an attorney, if not earlier. It sucks, but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?
AFAIK only in Guangdong and Hong Kong, outside of those regions, nobody uses Cantonese, at least not that I heard. Most business will be done in either the local language or Mandarin.
Those 400m people are mostly in rural areas. Legally all schools are supposed to be conducted in Mandarin, although exceptions are made for foreign language schools as Beijing is keen on having people learn foreign languages.
But, the difficulty level is pretty low. Of the languages I've studied, Mandarin is by far the easiest one to learn. The grammar is astonishingly simple and even the feared characters are mostly a matter of study. If you start with the radicals and skip learning individual characters in favor of whole words, its' not that tough. Most Chinese words are either one character or the newer style which are compounds of 2 or 3 of the older characters. And considering that the PRC has achieved a literacy rate over 85% it's clearly something that's doable for anybody that's willing to put in the effort and time.
Tones, do take some getting used to, but none of the tones in Mandarin are ones that we don't have in English, it's just that they use them differently than we do in English.
I don't personally think that Chinese is likely to be mandatory, however, it is going to be increasingly useful in coming years. Especially the written form that tends to scare people away. But, after a year of looking at them in China, I found after a while that there's a pattern to them, and whenever I see simplified Chinese characters, I get a warm fuzzy feeling that everything is going to be OK.
I used to live a couple hours from there, and it's the only part of China where I would routinely run into people that couldn't speak any Chinese. The local Cantonese is still very strong there, which makes it difficult for those that don't speak Cantonese and can't read and write.
Hong Kong was even worse because if they didn't speak English, they probably wouldn't speak Mandarin and the writing system in use is mainly traditional Chinese rather than the simplified system in use in the PRC.
My Chinese isn't particularly good, but in most of China it was good enough to order food and conduct basic business.
The main issue with translating Chinese characters is that traditionally there are no separations made between words, so the computer has to guess at where the word boundaries are. But, yes, the computer will do better with characters than with pinyin, but really this is an area which is still largely a mess.
There isn't really. The alphabet that's used in Europe is faster to learn than the character set of Chinese characters. But, the Chinese characters each convey far more meaning than a set of words would.
There are pros and cons here, the alphabet is faster to learn to read and write, but it's less efficient to read. Whereas Chinese takes years to learn to read and write, but is substantially more efficient for reading.
My main issue with written Chinese is that they haven't adopted Western style word spacing. Which means that you have to recognize when the words start and stop, which is quite difficult for beginners and those that have poor literacy skills. 90% or so of the time it's the longest possible word containing the characters, but that still leaves about 10% of the time where some of the characters could belong to either of the words.
Still, it's a far more efficient writing system to read than English is.
As somebody who spent a year living in the PRC, I went in wondering the same thing. But the fact of the matter is that their are so many homophones that they would need to invent a new language just to make it work.
The radicals and tones are an essential portion of the language, removing them would be like taking English words and removing the spaces and punctuation marks. It would turn it into a mess.
The radicals themselves are essential to learning to read and write the Chinese language. Romanization systems don't work because there are too many homophones to worry about. And what's more there are hundreds of different Chinese languages out there whose only point of intersection is the written language. Removing that would require teaching 600m or so people a new language and nearly 1.5b people to read and write in a new language.
Stroke order isn't quite as silly as you make it out to be, the stroke order is like it is primarily because you draw the radicals in a certain way, and when those radicals are put into a character they retain their order. This cuts down on the amount of time and energy that it takes to learn to write.
As far as legacy goes, Chinese is far easier than you seem to recognize. Sure, learning the characters is a PITA, but it's not hard, it's just a lot of work. And it's held up remarkably well for millenia. The grammar is simple enough as well.
As far as "the language" goes, Mandarin is just a voice given to silent characters. It's not any easier or harder than any other Chinese language. It has 5 tones, which in some ways is easier than some with more tones, but it means that you spend more time and energy determining which homophone you're dealing with.
Because there's presumably going to be an encrypted signal coming from the car. If you're caught driving a car that has a doctored display, I'm sure there are charges that apply.
Around here even just having an unapproved cover on the license plate is grounds for a citation. If you're doing something like this you're likely looking at prison time.
What I mean is that people use the mouse to scroll around, and not for the rest of it.
And, I don't care how many buttons your mouse has, it does not have more than a keyboard. What's more, only an idiot uses a mouse as a mouse just does not have the level of precision necessary for CAD.
There probably are novices out there that never bothered to learn the short cuts, but anybody that cares about efficiency or precision is going to be using the keyboard almost exclusively.
It's not and people don't typically use a mouse for CAD. Sure a mouse is used, but most of the actual work is done via keyboard shortcuts because it's both more accurate and faster.
That would be a constitutional violation. As a state, they can't place restrictions on where items are sourced within the US. The reason that the Federal Government controls the regulation of interstate commerce is specifically to prevent that from happening.
If they're doing it, it's merely because nobody has cared enough to challenge it in court.
You're still responsible for driving without the necessary license plates. It's not the lack of license plates that gets you in trouble, it's the driving on public roads without an appropriate set of license plates that gets you in trouble.
And, what's more, if you're caught doing it as part of a conspiracy, you're facing more than just the civil infraction for the license plate being obscured.
Because they already filled up WA and screwed up our political process with the same bullshit they screwed up their own state with?
Driving without plates is already an offense. I'm not sure why they would need to specifically make driving with broken plates illegal.
Realistically, if you're driving around with a broken plate, the police will pull you over and verify things. And probably issue a citation for not having the proper plate on the car.
However, unlike ordinary plates, it sounds like the police would still know what the plate number was, even if the plate itself had a broken display.
That would be one of my main concerns. The other would be a clerical error or bug listing a car that I'm driving in as being stolen or having expired plates.
I kind of like the idea, but I'm concerned that this will wind up being one of those things that never gets perfected because they can't get close enough without horrible bugs and abuses of power.
As far as privacy goes, this isn't really that much worse than what we already have. Which is huge numbers of license plate readers having their information fed into unregulated databases; because obvious a lack of right to privacy in public is the same thing as permitting all of that information to be compiled without any monitoring.
I take it you're not a hunter and don't do any fishing. Even in the 21st century we don't really have the luxury of biding our time if we're depending upon that next deer for sustenance. The only reason why hunters obsess about the rack size on that deer is because they have alternate sources for food.
Likewise, a fish finder will give you an indication that there are fish there, but if they're not interested in biting, it's a moot point.
Obesity isn't supposed to be adaptive. Humans evolved during a time when we couldn't know when our next meal was coming and so we go to be very efficient at storing the excess fat. The problem is that people generally eat 3 times a day, or more, regardless of whether or not they're hungry. And when they do eat, they tend to eat more than what they need to survive.
In the conditions we evolved in, the effect over all is that we wouldn't wind up obese because we wouldn't get to over eat endlessly, at some point we'd spend a period starving and burn the calories.
Also, our ancestors spent a lot less time with butt planted in chair, if the wanted to sit, most of the time they would just crouch. Even today, it's common for people in the developing world to crouch for long periods of time.
That's what I was curious about. Obviously, there's something more going on here, because it's not the amount of food you eat, or even the type, that determines if you get fat, it's what sort of surplus or deficit you're running after the food gets digested that ultimately matters.
And more efficient or less efficient bacteria would only dictate how much food you would have to consume to absorb a certain number of calories, not how much of it winds up being stored as fat.
You mean the real world? I must say that I can't blame you, 'tis a horrid place.
No, they were designed and built for the purpose of killing and destroying. Honestly, that apologistics makes me sick.
The devices were invented for the express purpose of killing things, nobody would have invented such an expensive device otherwise. And yes the intent of the action has everything to do with it, why else would they have invented the things in the first place? Target practice as a sport didn't exist until well after the invention of the firearm, it was not the cause of the invention of the firearm.
Guns are never toys. I don't care if you're only using them to shoot targets, they are a tool. A tool that's designed to kill and destroy. Yes, a lot of people use them for target practice (destroying), hunting (killing) and self defense (killing); but ultimately the use is destructive.
If you want a toy gun, get one of those models that shoots soft pellets, and make sure not to use them without appropriate eye protection.
Because juveniles aren't supposed to access to the materials at the adult book store?
I think the better question is why is it that so many people use the term "juvenile" to refer to things that are by and for adults.
My dad likes guns, but that doesn't mean that he should engage in stupid practices with it or is any less dead if something happens as a result.
Died doing something somebody loved, is something people say when the consequences of their own stupidity led to their own demise. I've never heard somebody saying that about a book lover who died reading a book. The main reason being that there's no point, you don't need to rationalize the death.
The larger ones are going to be somewhat easier to control as they have more mass and aren't as likely to move randomly with small air currents. But, with that comes more inertia when they do move, which means that if you screw up, it takes more to get them back under control. And you don't have the option of just letting them crash.
I'm guessing that a lot of people don't realize how much force are in the blades of a helicopter that size. I know I've never thought about it.