I wasn't claiming to be the first to bring up the question. The post I replied to said that 'we also tacitly accept a few wrongful convictions...' and I wanted to know what the poster's opinion on that N was.
Perhaps, in this time of fear mongering, it might be better to turn the question around and ask "How many innocent people should be jailed in order to catch all the guilty?" But, I wonder, how many people would recognize that an answer less then 'all' would still allow some guilty people to go free.
"That being said, it is far worse to convict an innocent individual than to let a guilty man go free."
At a one/one ratio, but some friendly casualties are inevitable. We accept a certain baseline of victims and injured/KIA police as the cost of fighting crime. We also tacitly accept a few wrongful convictions...
When does the ratio become acceptable or unacceptable? At 10:1; 1:1; 1:1,000,000 or at either extreme, "Even the innocent should be jailed if it means we catch all the guilty people." or "The guilty should go free rather then an innocent person be jailed."
"We estimate that between March 18, 2003, and June, 2006, an additional 654,965 (392,979â"942,636) Iraqis have died above what would have been expected on the basis of the pre-invasion crude mortality rate as a consequence of the coalition invasion. Of these deaths, we estimate that 601,027 (426,369â"793,663) were due to violence."
Call me blind, but that study seems to suggest even higher numbers of dead Iraqis due to violence. Rounding off, that's 600,000 from March 03 to June 06. The UK survey that you are bashing suggested it took another year for it to rise by just 50,000 while the Lancet study had numbers of around 500 deaths per day.
Or are you just arguing that since Wiki has some critisms listed, that obviously the study must be flawed? I have to admit, I am more inclined to believe that study that says 'we picked our samples at random and have a 95% CI,' then I am someone who complains that 'They couldn't possibly study that many samples in a day simply because I say so.' But, if you do, then I suppose the numbers don't mean anything.
Obviously, the reason people play games on the PS3 and 360 are because the motion controls are 1:1 and that makes the golf/baseball/football games so much better.
Oh, wait, guess not
The technology to use a Wii-mote sized object to get full 1:1 movement would have made the controllers prohibitively expensive. Gyroscope chips are about 10 times the price of a 3 axis accelerometers*. The Wii couldn't have been sold at that price.
In the end, it's a controller. The game is not real life, and we've settled for pushing buttons for so long now we all want to complain that the motion sensing isn't perfect? Even if it was perfect, then someone would complain that the graphics weren't, or the sound needs work, or the rules of baseball suck and why make a game out of it anyways.
footnote *: just from a quick googling of prices from the company that provides the Wii remotes accelerometer.
Art of Illusion is a nice modeler, but when I tried it a long time ago it's export ability just wasn't what I needed. The spline modeler, though, was a really useful before I found Inkscape.
Looking at it now, it seems like it is much more mature, though the one feature I would like to see is the ability to export it's textures. I know you can't directly export the procedural stuff, but you could export them as UV maps. Either way, I will have to look at it again, now that the IRTC is back.
Are you really drawing a parallel between assisted suicide and teenage suicides?
Just in case you are serious, I'll state up front that I'm infavor of assisted suicides. A person who is of sound mind, if not body, should have the ability to pick the time and place of their exit with dignity. This is completely different from a teenager killing them self.
First off, the girl was 13, well under the age of legal adulthood. Secondly, assisted suicide is, or should be, a medical procedure. If that's the line you want to draw, then the woman should be charged with medical malpractice, for performing a medical procedure without informed consent, along side practicing without a license, misrepresentation, and a host of other crimes that I'm pretty sure will have a harsher sentence.
Remember, all the woman is getting charged with is computer crimes, misrepresentation of identity and posing as a minor, violation of MySpace's TOS, and such. She isn't getting charged with murder, though it seems many people would like to see her charged with it.
Oh jesus.
What if, instead of being a conniving, bitchy neighbour lady, the messages had instead come from an asshole teenage boy who e-dumped her in an equally mean way?
Since she didn't realize it was all a hoax, she wouldn't know the difference and we can safely assume the suicide would have happened in the same way.
Would that also be murder? If said teenage asshole also had reasonable expectation that it would cause her to kill herself, and acted in careless disregard of that knowledge, then yes, IMO that should be murder also.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>A: Top-posting.
>>>Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Shamelessly copied from wiki. It was the first place I could find the whole joke via google.
I've had similar problems with tree rats, I mean squirrels. The pigeons are smart enough to get out of the way of a bright yellow scooter, but the squirrels. . . one of them sat and stared at me from the road side as I came near, then ran directly for my rear tire as I passed.
Either I was a nut, or it was nuts. It survived, I think. At the least, it kept running across the street.
Not enough people will read what AC said, so I'll quote it:
That understanding of the Fourth Amendment has been on the books for centuries. It might be "right" or "wrong," but there's no doubt that it's been the law for ages. Wow, a centuries old precedent that was derived from a 22 year old Supreme Court case? That's pretty amazing.
Yes, I have. I wasn't giving a 'How to secure your WIFI connection' post, so I was glossing over all the factors you have you to consider.
All the computers connected to the AP have to be treated as if they are going through an open AP at the coffee shop. Even the computers on the wired side, since you can not always predict the next usable attack vector for an MIM attack. They also have to be secured against in-network cracking, you are no longer trusting the hardware firewall to do that while it also does NAT. However, if I were to set up an AP, encrypted and MAC filtered and everything, those are the same (non-inclusive) steps I would take.
Once the access point is there, you guard against it as if it were open. I don't think Bruce is silly enough to not do that. Once you have the network protected as if the AP was open, why not leave it open?
How is this any different then what can be done with an encrypted and 'closed' wireless network once you break through the encryption?
Once the wireless network is there, for what ever reason, why not leave it open? The current methods of closing a wireless network aren't all that bullet proof.
Okay, I'm not Bruse, but I'll explain. If I open my wireless network, I know it's open. I can secure the computers behind with the knowledge that the wireless system is wide open. This is not really any different then securing the whole internal network against internet based problems. And, on the off chance that he really does have a single AP/router combo with the other computers connected directly to it, then the computers all need to be secured. How does this differ from securing a laptop that you use while traveling, connecting to what ever unsecured wireless signal you can pick up, except that you have to do it to all the devices involved?
So, let's say you keep your wireless system closed. What happens when someone cracks the encryption key and gets access anyways? What happens when an internet bot net gets turned on your router because someone found a vulnerability in it? Lots of people kept secured computers before home routers and NAT became a real necessity. Doing so hasn't really gotten that much tougher. Just more constant.
My real guess, though, is that he keeps the wireless and wired networks separated. Internet->wifi AP ->wired router+NAT+firewall-> computers. Given that he's a pro, the wifi AP and wired router might not even be connected to each other at all.
As I said for weapons that could not have been imagined by the founding fathers, an amendment could solve the problem where simple laws should not. The can of worms, though, is why a violent felon is released back on to the streets. Why, for example, is a murderer out of prison after only 10 years after having been sentenced to 80, having not been found 'not guilty' but only because the prison is too crowded? My opinion, that person should not be allowed to own a weapon for those 80 years or until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are no longer a threat to others. I think, just pondering the idea for a few moments, I would approve of other rights being suspended for the duration of the punishment, similar to when they had been incarcerated. Reduced right to privacy, no firearms, while still keeping the other rights they currently enjoy such as the freedom of speech, religion, no self incrimination, etc. Under this alternate constitution, those would only work if the original sentence, the 80 years in the supposed case, was fair and not inhumane. The major problem I would see, though, is that the public could easily be swayed into thinking that the sentence is 10 years and ignoring the suspended rights for the rest of the punishment term. Like I said, a can of worms.
Under the current constitution, as printed without any history of interpretation, I think they should be allowed to own the same weapons as anyone else. However, at that point in my post, I was thinking about how amendments could be used in place of laws to clarify the 2nd Amendment, not how the laws have so far been used. And my apologies for the delayed reply, life took over for a few days.
Let me second that idea, and then add to it. Assembly programing will give you a better idea of what your hardware is actually capable of doing, instead of abstracting everything behind objects and function calls.
My suggestion, if you know C++ or Java, is to learn something that isn't slightly object oriented. Pick up Lisp, Haskell, Prolog, any of them. Learn to think in a different direction. Learn straight C. If you really want a challange, hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm and learn one language from each paradigm. You don't need to learn them well enough to think in them without looking at a grammar cheat sheet, but just write a simple program in each one. Say, populating a list and sorting it, or a Fibonacci generator.
Then, take your favorite language, and write something for an embedded platform. A telephone, hand held game system, a custom project using any old PIC/Atmel/MIPS/whatever. Get used to writing stuff where you can't abstract everything, because you have a bigger limit on memory and system functions. You don't need to do this in assembly though, by this point, you may find that you want to.
By the time you are done, you will look at programing differently. Not in a 'How do I do this in a language and library set I am comfortable with' way, but from a 'which tool works best for this situation' perspective. That will make you a better programmer.
Will you, at the least, quote the whole Second Amendment?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, why are 'the People' of the Second Amendment any different from 'the People' anywhere else?
Personally, I think it does mean all people and all weapons. I don't think the founding fathers expecting anything like nuclear weapons, but even those could be removed from citizens by an amendment instead of just a few laws. My opinion is that the intent was to allow the citizens to own any weapon that the government could possibly also own and turn against them. In that manner, and I'm sorry for you but, I think your ex-wife should be allowed to rockets and full auto weapons.
As for felons, that's a whole other can of worms.
On topic, I disagree with the ACLU on the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, that's not what I expect them to do, I expect them to protect free speech and privacy and other rights.
POV-Ray's radiosity is still ray-tracing. It just sends more rays out from a point to determine the light that is reaching that point. From the description in the POV-Ray docs, it sounds more like a modified brute force rendering approach. While brute force just picks a relatively random direction and blends the result from each pass, POV determines if it needs to create new radiosity data for that point and if it does generates several rays.
The photon system in POV-Ray would be a backwards raytracing approach, or forward if you prefer to use the lights as the reference point. The rays are cast from the lights outward towards targets to determine what the effects will be. That data gets stored, then normal raytracing proceeds and uses the photon data to affect the texture where the light falls.
Want list for POV-Ray: BRDF and BSDF and brute force raytracing.
Ultimate raytracer: Spectral light instead of single RGB colors mixed with all of the above.
The point here is that for the vast majority of cases where the four anti-depressants in question are usually prescribed,
they have roughly the same effect as a couple of grams of chalk wrapped up in a sugar coating.
Which rather brings into question their value in all but the most extreme cases.
Which, to me, sounds like the drugs are being proscribed in cases where they aren't needed. Or, alternatively, they are being given medication that isn't treating the cause of the depression.
It's like Ritalin. 3 year olds are allowed to be hyper, and teenagers get depressed. Not all 3 year olds suffer from ADHD, and not all teenagers are suffering from anything other then hormones.
Rain isn't so bad, I agree. But I got stuck out one night in a bad combination of rain and fog. Thick fog that stuck to the outside of my visor, and the inside misted up because it was so cold. Cracking the visor open a little didn't work, then my glasses fogged up too. Something like this that would actively repel water would have been great that evening.
Just because it is on glass now doesn't mean the same idea can not be applied to plastics later.
... and you were trying to steer the debate to a religious talk about human soul.
And I thought the same about you with regard to when the cells become a person. My apologies as well.
Without getting too religious, may I ask why you would prefer to be wrong about considering a cluster of cells a 'person'? Myself, I would rather cure diseases without human trials or fetal stem cells, however since in some cases those both look like the best options I'm not willing to rule them out.
Maybe it was just a TV show, but I remember hearing about how some parents whose child had cancer and needed a bone marrow transplant were encouraged to have a second child to be the bone marrow donor. While this could save a life, I am hesitant about it's actual use. A cluster of cells, on the other hand, I do not feel that way about. And if parents are willing to use the first route, and haven't been discouraged thus far, why should the second option be more shunned?
You didn't ask me, you asked someone else and I responded.
Since you are now asking me, I'll just have to say "I don't know." One cell is not a person, even a cluster of cells is not a person. Ever had a mole removed, or a tooth pulled? I doubt you want those counted as murder. Except for the combination of gene structure, I don't see much difference between a separate sperm and egg, and the two cells that result after they combine and divide once.
While not a perfect definition, I would start with 'the group of cells become a person when the cells are able to survive on their own.' No where near a total definition, as someone could twist it to say 'when the person is able to survive on their own' which would distort the meaning, and it fails to include people with self destructive cellular disorders. Not intentionally, though. I just can't come up with an all inclusive statement that won't feed the trolls. Better to do it intentionally.
When do they become people ? When they get a soul?
Now, prove that the inclusion of a soul occurs sometime between when they are two separate cells that later form one cell and later split into two cells again. Formal proof only, with scientific evidence, gathered from a repeatable experiment.
It's also not likely that AmGen or Wyeth will work from Enbrel simple because it's a huge protein structure. 51234.9 g/mol is not tiny by any measure. Tweaking a protein to get through the blood brain barrier might not be the best way to go. This may be just a small part of the protein at work, or spinal injections might just be the simpler way to deliver it.
They could always re-patent some new delivery method, maybe a better diluent.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, in this time of fear mongering, it might be better to turn the question around and ask "How many innocent people should be jailed in order to catch all the guilty?" But, I wonder, how many people would recognize that an answer less then 'all' would still allow some guilty people to go free.
"That being said, it is far worse to convict an innocent individual than to let a guilty man go free."
At a one/one ratio, but some friendly casualties are inevitable. We accept a certain baseline of victims and injured/KIA police as the cost of fighting crime. We also tacitly accept a few wrongful convictions...
When does the ratio become acceptable or unacceptable? At 10:1; 1:1; 1:1,000,000 or at either extreme, "Even the innocent should be jailed if it means we catch all the guilty people." or "The guilty should go free rather then an innocent person be jailed."Call me blind, but that study seems to suggest even higher numbers of dead Iraqis due to violence. Rounding off, that's 600,000 from March 03 to June 06. The UK survey that you are bashing suggested it took another year for it to rise by just 50,000 while the Lancet study had numbers of around 500 deaths per day.
Or are you just arguing that since Wiki has some critisms listed, that obviously the study must be flawed? I have to admit, I am more inclined to believe that study that says 'we picked our samples at random and have a 95% CI,' then I am someone who complains that 'They couldn't possibly study that many samples in a day simply because I say so.' But, if you do, then I suppose the numbers don't mean anything.
Oh, wait, guess not
The technology to use a Wii-mote sized object to get full 1:1 movement would have made the controllers prohibitively expensive. Gyroscope chips are about 10 times the price of a 3 axis accelerometers*. The Wii couldn't have been sold at that price.
In the end, it's a controller. The game is not real life, and we've settled for pushing buttons for so long now we all want to complain that the motion sensing isn't perfect? Even if it was perfect, then someone would complain that the graphics weren't, or the sound needs work, or the rules of baseball suck and why make a game out of it anyways.
footnote *: just from a quick googling of prices from the company that provides the Wii remotes accelerometer.
Looking at it now, it seems like it is much more mature, though the one feature I would like to see is the ability to export it's textures. I know you can't directly export the procedural stuff, but you could export them as UV maps. Either way, I will have to look at it again, now that the IRTC is back.
Just in case you are serious, I'll state up front that I'm infavor of assisted suicides. A person who is of sound mind, if not body, should have the ability to pick the time and place of their exit with dignity. This is completely different from a teenager killing them self.
First off, the girl was 13, well under the age of legal adulthood. Secondly, assisted suicide is, or should be, a medical procedure. If that's the line you want to draw, then the woman should be charged with medical malpractice, for performing a medical procedure without informed consent, along side practicing without a license, misrepresentation, and a host of other crimes that I'm pretty sure will have a harsher sentence.
Remember, all the woman is getting charged with is computer crimes, misrepresentation of identity and posing as a minor, violation of MySpace's TOS, and such. She isn't getting charged with murder, though it seems many people would like to see her charged with it.
I suspect you are right, though. It is easier to program the email client then is it to use appropriate LARTs on the boss.
But, honestly, which one would be more memorable?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>A: Top-posting.
>>>Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Shamelessly copied from wiki. It was the first place I could find the whole joke via google.
I've had similar problems with tree rats, I mean squirrels. The pigeons are smart enough to get out of the way of a bright yellow scooter, but the squirrels. . . one of them sat and stared at me from the road side as I came near, then ran directly for my rear tire as I passed. Either I was a nut, or it was nuts. It survived, I think. At the least, it kept running across the street.
Yes, I have. I wasn't giving a 'How to secure your WIFI connection' post, so I was glossing over all the factors you have you to consider.
All the computers connected to the AP have to be treated as if they are going through an open AP at the coffee shop. Even the computers on the wired side, since you can not always predict the next usable attack vector for an MIM attack. They also have to be secured against in-network cracking, you are no longer trusting the hardware firewall to do that while it also does NAT. However, if I were to set up an AP, encrypted and MAC filtered and everything, those are the same (non-inclusive) steps I would take.
Once the access point is there, you guard against it as if it were open. I don't think Bruce is silly enough to not do that. Once you have the network protected as if the AP was open, why not leave it open?
How is this any different then what can be done with an encrypted and 'closed' wireless network once you break through the encryption?
Once the wireless network is there, for what ever reason, why not leave it open? The current methods of closing a wireless network aren't all that bullet proof.
Okay, I'm not Bruse, but I'll explain. If I open my wireless network, I know it's open. I can secure the computers behind with the knowledge that the wireless system is wide open. This is not really any different then securing the whole internal network against internet based problems. And, on the off chance that he really does have a single AP/router combo with the other computers connected directly to it, then the computers all need to be secured. How does this differ from securing a laptop that you use while traveling, connecting to what ever unsecured wireless signal you can pick up, except that you have to do it to all the devices involved?
So, let's say you keep your wireless system closed. What happens when someone cracks the encryption key and gets access anyways? What happens when an internet bot net gets turned on your router because someone found a vulnerability in it? Lots of people kept secured computers before home routers and NAT became a real necessity. Doing so hasn't really gotten that much tougher. Just more constant.
My real guess, though, is that he keeps the wireless and wired networks separated. Internet->wifi AP ->wired router+NAT+firewall-> computers. Given that he's a pro, the wifi AP and wired router might not even be connected to each other at all.
As I said for weapons that could not have been imagined by the founding fathers, an amendment could solve the problem where simple laws should not. The can of worms, though, is why a violent felon is released back on to the streets. Why, for example, is a murderer out of prison after only 10 years after having been sentenced to 80, having not been found 'not guilty' but only because the prison is too crowded? My opinion, that person should not be allowed to own a weapon for those 80 years or until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are no longer a threat to others. I think, just pondering the idea for a few moments, I would approve of other rights being suspended for the duration of the punishment, similar to when they had been incarcerated. Reduced right to privacy, no firearms, while still keeping the other rights they currently enjoy such as the freedom of speech, religion, no self incrimination, etc. Under this alternate constitution, those would only work if the original sentence, the 80 years in the supposed case, was fair and not inhumane. The major problem I would see, though, is that the public could easily be swayed into thinking that the sentence is 10 years and ignoring the suspended rights for the rest of the punishment term. Like I said, a can of worms.
Under the current constitution, as printed without any history of interpretation, I think they should be allowed to own the same weapons as anyone else. However, at that point in my post, I was thinking about how amendments could be used in place of laws to clarify the 2nd Amendment, not how the laws have so far been used. And my apologies for the delayed reply, life took over for a few days.
Let me second that idea, and then add to it. Assembly programing will give you a better idea of what your hardware is actually capable of doing, instead of abstracting everything behind objects and function calls.
My suggestion, if you know C++ or Java, is to learn something that isn't slightly object oriented. Pick up Lisp, Haskell, Prolog, any of them. Learn to think in a different direction. Learn straight C. If you really want a challange, hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm and learn one language from each paradigm. You don't need to learn them well enough to think in them without looking at a grammar cheat sheet, but just write a simple program in each one. Say, populating a list and sorting it, or a Fibonacci generator.
Then, take your favorite language, and write something for an embedded platform. A telephone, hand held game system, a custom project using any old PIC/Atmel/MIPS/whatever. Get used to writing stuff where you can't abstract everything, because you have a bigger limit on memory and system functions. You don't need to do this in assembly though, by this point, you may find that you want to.
By the time you are done, you will look at programing differently. Not in a 'How do I do this in a language and library set I am comfortable with' way, but from a 'which tool works best for this situation' perspective. That will make you a better programmer.
Now, why are 'the People' of the Second Amendment any different from 'the People' anywhere else?
Personally, I think it does mean all people and all weapons. I don't think the founding fathers expecting anything like nuclear weapons, but even those could be removed from citizens by an amendment instead of just a few laws. My opinion is that the intent was to allow the citizens to own any weapon that the government could possibly also own and turn against them. In that manner, and I'm sorry for you but, I think your ex-wife should be allowed to rockets and full auto weapons.
As for felons, that's a whole other can of worms.
On topic, I disagree with the ACLU on the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, that's not what I expect them to do, I expect them to protect free speech and privacy and other rights.
The photon system in POV-Ray would be a backwards raytracing approach, or forward if you prefer to use the lights as the reference point. The rays are cast from the lights outward towards targets to determine what the effects will be. That data gets stored, then normal raytracing proceeds and uses the photon data to affect the texture where the light falls.
Want list for POV-Ray: BRDF and BSDF and brute force raytracing.
Ultimate raytracer: Spectral light instead of single RGB colors mixed with all of the above.
Which, to me, sounds like the drugs are being proscribed in cases where they aren't needed. Or, alternatively, they are being given medication that isn't treating the cause of the depression.
It's like Ritalin. 3 year olds are allowed to be hyper, and teenagers get depressed. Not all 3 year olds suffer from ADHD, and not all teenagers are suffering from anything other then hormones.
Just because it is on glass now doesn't mean the same idea can not be applied to plastics later.
... and you were trying to steer the debate to a religious talk about human soul.And I thought the same about you with regard to when the cells become a person. My apologies as well.
Without getting too religious, may I ask why you would prefer to be wrong about considering a cluster of cells a 'person'? Myself, I would rather cure diseases without human trials or fetal stem cells, however since in some cases those both look like the best options I'm not willing to rule them out.
Maybe it was just a TV show, but I remember hearing about how some parents whose child had cancer and needed a bone marrow transplant were encouraged to have a second child to be the bone marrow donor. While this could save a life, I am hesitant about it's actual use. A cluster of cells, on the other hand, I do not feel that way about. And if parents are willing to use the first route, and haven't been discouraged thus far, why should the second option be more shunned?
Since you are now asking me, I'll just have to say "I don't know." One cell is not a person, even a cluster of cells is not a person. Ever had a mole removed, or a tooth pulled? I doubt you want those counted as murder. Except for the combination of gene structure, I don't see much difference between a separate sperm and egg, and the two cells that result after they combine and divide once.
While not a perfect definition, I would start with 'the group of cells become a person when the cells are able to survive on their own.' No where near a total definition, as someone could twist it to say 'when the person is able to survive on their own' which would distort the meaning, and it fails to include people with self destructive cellular disorders. Not intentionally, though. I just can't come up with an all inclusive statement that won't feed the trolls. Better to do it intentionally.
What's your definition, then?
Now, prove that the inclusion of a soul occurs sometime between when they are two separate cells that later form one cell and later split into two cells again. Formal proof only, with scientific evidence, gathered from a repeatable experiment.
They could always re-patent some new delivery method, maybe a better diluent.