However, China is a big country. There are most than 100 dialects spoken in China.
Ah yes, I have of course fallen into the trap of assuming that Chinese is Mandarin is Chinese. To note though, those 100 "dialects" are actually more mutually intelligible than Swedish/Norwegian/Danish are from each other. But then a language is just a dialect with an army, right? I mean, Moldovia keeps asserting that they speak a different language, when it's immediately clear that it is identical to Romanian... "But we say 'soda' and they say 'pop'!"... that's hardly even worth calling a "dialect"...
That's what the papers said, we all know in truth he died from rownriness.
You know the joke is that Koreans can say the 'L' sound, it is the Japanese who don't use it in their own language. Like a lot of that film is was supposed to show up the general ignorance of Americans about the world, but I suppose it was a bit too subtle and the joke whooshed over people's heads. Don't feel too bad though, most British people didn't get it either.
For the record, I got the original joke.
Now, in fact, Japanese doesn't use the same sounds as English "l" (lateral alveolar approximant) or "r" (alveolar approximant), but rather something reasonably different from both: a retroflex tap. However, as Japanese uses this to transliterate or approximate the pronunciation of both sounds in English, we tend to hear a discrepancy between both, and usually interpret this as the sound corresponding to an allophone for the other. So, English speakers tend to hear a Japanese person saying "r" instead of what we expect "l", but equally tend to hear a Japanese person saying "l" instead of what we expect "r".
Getting to Korean, they actually only have one phoneme for "l" and "r" as well, but it works differently from how it does in Japanese, in that the two sounds are distinct, but they are just allophones of each other. Thus while a Korean can typically pronounce "lice" just fine, they cannot typically properly pronounce "kilo-", instead using a flap instead of a lateral approximant. Meanwhile they will typically pronounce "rice" as "lice", and "aria" as a flap instead of an approximant.
Finally, Chinese has two phonemes that are interpreted as "l" and "r". The lateral approximant ("l") being typical, but the "r" phoneme corresponding with a voiced retroflex sibilant. English speakers typically interpret the latter as an "r"-ish sound, because it is retroflex, but in Russian, the phoneme is considered a "zh" noise similar to the "s" in "pleasure". This could cause Chinese speakers to approximate the "r" sound with an "l", rather than their voiced retroflex sibilant which orthographically appears closer, but actually shares little in common.
So this "Asians can't pronounce 'l's" has some basis in... well, I'll call it pseudo-fact. In reality, all the languages disagree a lot about "l"s and "r"s proper, so much so that English's IPA transcription usually renders the alveolar approximant as an alveolar trill; a completely different form of articulation, that neither American English nor British English actually use! There are actually about 11 different forms of articulations (according to the IPA) that correspond to "r"s and "l"s in various languages, and none of the languages precisely agree about how to divide them up properly, because a language usually only ever interprets two phonemes out of all of them, but some as low as one (Japanese and Korean), or some even up to three (Spanish). So, once you start adding up the possible combinations of "what is r?" and "what is l?" you get into pretty murky waters quite quickly.
, I had my Oxycotin prescription renewed without question, or hassle for about 2 months (at one point, they later switched me to Vicodin, same stuff, just a higher Tylenol to narcotic ratio).
You are thinking of oxycodone, which is a different formulation of hydrocodone. They have about the same strength, but oxycodone is generally more effective at treating pain. Typically if you've become resistant to hydrocodone, you can switch to oxycodone and have better effectiveness for a short period. They metabolize into the same chemicals. Oxycontin is an extended release version of oxycodone, that typically lasts for 24 hours. Its also a much higher dosage than what you find in percocet (5-10mg oxycodone and 325mg tylenol). You can also get vicodin with 5-10mg of hydrocodone and 325-500mg of tylenol.
This clearly looks well researched and knowledgeable about the pharmacology involved. Say, that I'm allergic to morphine (because I am), are oxycodone, and hydrocodone different enough that I wouldn't be allergic to them? Or rather, what I mean is, is there a high or low correlation between allergy to morphine and those two opiates?
Why I ask, is because I know that I am allergic to morphine (was told by doctors, kept them informed, later I had a spider vein inflammation from an injection given only because I was screaming bloody murder, and they decided the risk was worth it (I generally agree with this decision)), yet I have never had an apparent allergic response to any other opiates that I have taken in pill form.
I'm kind of rather clueless, and while I could probably work out an answer, it would take me a long time of study, much longer than I think is really necessary for a "I wonder..."
Apparently, my mileage varies greatly from others. I had a UTI, and they gave me a narcotic. No questions asked, just "here's a week's supply". And since I had 100% coverage, I didn't even give them any cash. It felt weird getting narcotics for just a signature, but there you go.
Later on, during recovery from some major surgery, I had my Oxycotin prescription renewed without question, or hassle for about 2 months (at one point, they later switched me to Vicodin, same stuff, just a higher Tylenol to narcotic ratio).
Although, I suppose in the surgical instances, no DEA agent is ever going to question why you're giving a patient narcotics after surgery... and then in the first case, I was peeing blood, so... probably no reason to expect to be hassled about that as well. Then of course, none of these three were for chronic pain, but rather for acute pain, that was expected to subside relatively quickly.
Come to think of it, after I had my big motorcycle crash, I think they gave me a short-term supply of narcotics as well, no questions asked. But then again, also not for chronic pain.
Meh, I don't know. I suppose what I'm saying is that I've never had trouble getting any narcotics. In fact, beyond the signing for it, I don't think I've ever had any more hassle getting narcotics than getting any other prescription drug. But then as noted, all of it was short-term, and none of it chronic. Likewise, all of them were well justified pain prescriptions.
Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".
Isn't the Sun's atmosphere supposed to be holy freakin' hell hotter than the Sun itself? Me, I'll just say "Way to go, Lovejoy!" (as in "Hunt for Red October").
Cool stuff.
I think it might be something like the Leidenfrost effect. The sun's atmosphere vaporizes comet, and these vaporized comet parts shield the rest of the core from vaporizing. Only, this would have to work with the vapor blocking the radiation heat rather than the convection/conductive heat that the typical Leidenfrost uses. a.k.a. a sort of über-Leidenfrost effect.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is considered to be composed of four "countries": The Netherlands, Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao.
Cool! A recursive kingdom definition.
Not really. The "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is technically distinct from the "Netherlands". It's like how your "Linux Operating System" is distinct from your "Linux Kernel", which cause some people to hold the position that the former should be called "GNU/Linux" to make it clearly distinct, and not to minimalize the importance of the GNU tools in the OS package.
Likewise, there is some political butthurt that the Kingdom is called "Netherlands", when the Netherlands is only a single part of the Kingdom. Thus, usually in Dutch the Kingdom is referred to as "the Kingdom" (translated from Dutch), while outside of the Kingdom, it's usually more common to refer to the Kingdom as a whole as the "Netherlands". Which isn't really as bad as it seems, most languages colloquially refer to the Kingdom as "Holland", which is an even smaller partition of the smaller partition of the Netherlands. While oft cited as a Synecdoche, it is technically a meta-Syncedoche, in that Holland is just a part of a part of the Kingdom.
"Dragging" me by my backpack would be a fast way to a broken face, at minimum. Get some self defense training, and be aware of your environment.
Yes, self defense courses are a perfect choice for my mother, who has bones so brittle that she's 6 standard deviations under the mean bone density.
No, not all women are this fragile, but your wonderfully simplistic advice completely ignores the complex realities of life. The advice for crime victims is almost always universally: "don't fight back, they might kill you for it."
Funny thing about that... a dead man's estate can still sue, and often a great number of things that a person says just before dying become admissible even though they would be hearsay if he were still alive. (Ok, oddly, the belief that one is about to die is really all that is necessary. If Alice who has been shot by all appearances fatally says, "Bob murdered me!" Then even if Alice survives, the statement could be used to impeach a later statement by Alice that Bob had not shot her.)
But still, relying upon the death of your victim to save you, really shows an ignorant position about the law. Dead man do sue (technically their estate, or heirs), their statements can start to be used even though they would otherwise be hearsay if the person had lived, and criminal law doesn't care about either of those.
As humorous as that is, it isn't a government regulation. At least, not in the sense that I think you're presenting. NAD is an regulatory body set up by the cosmetics industry to police itself.
Eh... not government regulation, but close enough. It's an industry self-regulation. Which usually means that it's only going to get called out if it's something so obviously and blatantly wrong that everyone else goes, "hey! not fair!"
In this case, exaggerating the effects of the makeup make the advertisement useless for evaluating the product. I think their reasoning is totally sound (of course it is, it's industry self-regulation): if your product lengthens lashes, then you shouldn't need to lengthen them further in post production.
Since when did cosmetics, and most especially the advertisements thereof, have anything to do with reality? They are like real life photoshop.
Which is entirely the point. You can't evaluate the makeup if it's muddled with other effects.
It's like saying "paint.exe can produce beautiful images; I mean, look at what we produced!" Yet, the picture were later edited with photoshop. How am I to tell how good paint.exe is, when photoshop has made the image far better than it normally would be?
They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Actually, they're protecting against fraudulent advertising. If I'm looking at an add for mascara, then I should expect that the model is wearing the mascara, and that the effects of the mascara aren't being modified beyond that of the mascara itself.
It's like an ad for a car, where the car has been photoshopped to look nicer. That's not actually the car!
Yes, someone else above is arguing that makeup itself is essentially real-life photoshopping, but then that is kind of the point. If the makeup is working properly, then the advertisements shouldn't need more photoshopping. How am I to evaluate the effectiveness or worth of the makeup, if the makeup's effects are muddled with other effects?
If I park somewhere that has a reasonable chance of a smash-and-grab, I take valuables with me.
Agreed. I had a shifty landlord, and we were involved in legal process against him (temporary restraining order already obtained). We thought he might be stupid enough to do something stupid, (he had already grabbed a piece of evidence out of my hands and ripped it up IN THE COURTROOM HALLS) but I let my guard down, and he surprised me with how stupid he could be, when he broke into my place and stole my laptop and briefcase with all my legal stuff (including evidence).
My lesson learned? Don't give people opportunity.
Flipping up to the summary though:
... low-tech purse snatching...
The recommendations I've read about this have been: don't attach your purse to your body, and if someone snatches your purse, just let them go. There are horror stories of a woman holding on to her purse, or getting caught up in it, and being dragged a long distance by the person stealing their purse. So, don't ever sling it across yourself, and don't clutch to it too tightly. Your well being and health are more important than your purse (no matter what it contains).
I suppose the same advice could carry over to some stuff carried by guys.
Yes. In English the word "state" refers to a sovereign political entity. The "United States of America" referred to each individual state as an individual and sovereign authority over their own land. However, as the USA has become more unitary rather than distinct, the term "state" in a political sense has experienced a form of semantic shift wherein people believe that it means a political subunit of a larger country.
In fact, the USA as a whole is a state, Germany is a state, the UN is a congregation of states. If you want more fun, The Kingdom of the Netherlands is considered to be composed of four "countries": The Netherlands, Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao. These collections of smaller politically sovereign entities into a larger politically sovereign entity causes a lot of confusion in this regard.
I am not saying, as you think I've said, that transpersons' gender identities and expressions are not genuine.
The word "emulate" carries a connotation that the emulating person is not being genuine.
Your whole "best effort" paragraph does little to make this sound any better. If a young girl from birth were raised as if a boy, and later decided to shurk this rearing and become a woman, would she be putting on her "best effort" to "emulate" a female, because she doesn't share a girlhood?
For your argument to work, it would have to apply equally well to children who have (abusively) been forced to conform to the opposite gender. That physiological conditions are not relevant, but rather the life experiences of those individuals. And what of children who transition early in life? Is this child emulating being a female as well? Even though she has lived full-time as a female since the 5th grade, and was afforded the courtesy of being gender-non-conformant even before that?
That is not a condemnation, or indictment, or any sort of projected negativity, but an acknowledgement of demonstrable developmental difference.
It would be folly for one to argue that trans people experience the same upbringing and development as cis people of the gender with which the trans person identifies. However, that does not invalidate the genuine nature of the trans person's gender, and certainly does not warrant the term "emulate". If a transperson is acting genuinely and honestly, then there is no "emulation" going on, they are being an honest representation of a woman, or man.
A transwoman is a woman, a transman is a man. They are not "emulating" their gender. Do they share identical developmental histories? No, but then gay people experience different developmental histories as well, sometimes gender non-conforming even. There is an incredible amount of variation in the world, and singling out one group of people and accusing them of "emulation" of their behaviors is offensive and wrong.
You claim to have trans history, yet you clearly don't show any obvious deference towards the feelings of those people. Black people are not immune to racism against blacks, and women are not immune to sexism against women, and homosexuals? All one need do is point to the all of the anti-gay politicians who turn out to be homosexual to demonstrate that homophobia is not limited to the heterosexuals.
Do transpeople have different histories from cispeople? Yes, they do. But there is no reason why that should depict them as less than genuine, especially considering how vast the differences in development of cisgendered people that can occur without even considering the transgendered.
(BTW, it was abundantly clear that your sexuality included a fetish for MTFs. I just didn't touch on it, because it's entirely irrelevant.)
So is talking about her to anybody else. Are you suggesting that he should be forbidden from doing that as well? If not, why not? What is the difference between telling other people and blogging? What if he wrote a book and published it? Would that constitute a breach of the restraining order as well?
Yes. Question not applicable. Nothing relevant to this case. Yes, writing a book would adversely affect her privacy as well. Yes, adversely affecting her privacy is obviously a breach of the restraining order.
Bear in mind that I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy on the point that he deliberately communicated with this girl's friends and family... I only defend his right to speak his mind to others.
He voluntarily forfeited his right to speak his mind to others.
Let's take a different example. Say that Alice is being discriminated against by her employer ACME. Alice takes ACME to court, and they eventually decide to settle the case. Alice agrees within the settlement not to talk about the settlement, or the details of the case. Would Alice be in breach of the settlement if she talked about the case? Yes, indeed she would, no matter who she talked to. (There are typically exceptions in these settlements for immediate family, and then confidentiality typically ensures that speaking about it with a lawyer, or to a spiritual adviser to obtain spiritual absolution will not endanger breach of contract.) She could speak to Bob, who lives in a remote village of a small Polynesian island, and she would still be in breach of contract.
The man willingly consented to a restriction against sharing any of her private details with ANYONE, not just her friends, family, or people who know her.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. It has no legal force of law. Also, none of the rights listed in the Declaration are "the right to free speech".
Oddly, these "inalienable" rights are regularly infringed upon by every government: Life: some governments do not practice capital punishment. However, if they do, they're violating your "inalienable" right to life. Liberty: all governments maintain arrest, and imprisonment. These would be a prima facie violation of your "inalienable" right to liberty. Pursuit of Happiness: "Happiness" as used here is actually synonymous with "Fortune". We needn't list all the ways that governments interfere with the ability of people to earn money. (The Slaughterhouse Cases specifically noted that the government has no duty to protect a person's ability to make an income.)
The FCC is implementing a law passed by Congress. The FCC did not "pass" anything.
This. I was waiting on the law, which was passed earlier this year, to go into effect. I wasn't aware that it was just the time for the FCC to enact a policy about it, which itself would take a year to actually come into enforcement.:(
I understand what you are saying about the Amazonian depictions and I agree that these depictions of Amazon societies are a construct of men.
In the same way, Bayonetta is not "embracing her sexuality", because she never actually lived. She is fictitious, and her actions are not her own informed choice, but rather her "actions" and "choices" are thrust upon her by the male programmers and game designers, who threw every sexual fantasy that they had upon her.
However, the depiction of Bayonetta does not mean that every real-life equivalent of Bayonetta is a sexist representation of masculine fantasy. In fact, were Bayonetta actually alive, she would be a feminist depiction of a woman embracing her sexuality.
It is thus important to realize that while Amazonian depictions project a masculine fantasy that women in power would respond the same as they do, it does not actually mean that were such a gender-role reversed culture be found that it would be a fantasy of masculine ideals. Neither does the actual existence of such a culture show that the masculine fantasies are not fantasies. (A bit of an example of "true knowledge" vs. "belief that just happened to be true".)
Again, I assert, there exists a primitive culture wherein the men are the subjugated gender, and as they are the subjugated gender, it falls upon them to be attractive and entice a mate to marry them. Regardless of this apparent full reversal of gender roles, the thing that makes this distinct and different from masculine fantasy, is that the women of this tribe do NOT do the physical activities of providing for food on most occasions, because there is a recognition in the culture that males do in fact have better muscular strength and endurance. The men get food by climbing trees, and other physically demanding actions, while the women obtain food in shortfalls by using their brains.
What makes this specific and extant culture interesting is not what gender roles are reversed (wearing make up, and being pretty are obviously cultural inclinations that would be exploited by a subjugated gender) but rather what gender roles are NOT reversed, but simple recontextualized, or reframed, in order to fit their believe system that women are the superior gender. (i.e. Men are stronger physically, sure, but who cares, they're idiots, and would be nothing without women to guide them.)
Addressing your "transphobia", the distinction of transgender vs. cisgender is something that should only ever matter between a person and those providing them medical care. There is no justifiable reason for society to treat them differently from cisgendered individuals of the same gender. Your statement that transgendered people are "emulating" the other gender belies a wrong assumption, and a hateful position similar to suggesting that black people are lazy. What are the "realities" of transgendered people not being of the gender that they IDENTIFY with? Genes, gonads, hormones, phenotypical traits? What of these apply to transgendered individuals but not Caster Semenya? Genes, and gonads. What of these narrowed traits do not also apply to women with CAIS? None. So, a woman can be a woman, and still have a 46-XY genotype, a man can be a man and still have a 46-XX genotype. A woman can still be a woman and have testies, as a man can be a man with ovaries and/or a uterus. A woman can still be a woman and have hormone levels consistent with men, and a man can be a man and have hormone levels consistent with women. A woman can still be a woman and have masculine features, and a man can still be a man and have feminine features. So, what really makes a woman a woman, or a man a man? There is no answer you can give that excludes the transgendered, without unnecessarily excluding intersexed individuals.
Your position that transgendered people are "acting", or "emulating" their identified gender implies that they are not genuinely the gender with which they identify with, and what does any of the gender of another person have to do wi
NDA's are something you sign so that you can receive a benefit that you would not otherwise get, and you are free to refuse to sign one without any legal consequence. That's somewhat different from a restraining order, where the restrained person has no choice in the matter unless they are willing to also go to jail.
A respondent to a restraining order always has to the option to oppose the restraining order in a hearing, wherein the court will hear arguments as to if the restraining order should be granted or not. If at the end of it, the court finds that the restraining order is just, he may end up granting it, which is a proper following of due process. (As I note above, due process can take away your life and liberty already, so why shouldn't it be capable of restricting one's free speech?)
Take it this way. We have a right to be free, and conduct our actions as we see fit. However, arrest abridges this freedom. Does that mean that all arrest is illegal? No, because arrest and imprisonment are granted by due process.
All of this is moot however, because the guy consented to the restraining order. The guy himself agreed to not harass her, or adversely affect her privacy. (Posting information about her online most certainly adversely affects her privacy, no matter what argument you attempt to present. It is prima facie divulging of private details.)
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that ideal capacitors are lossless components, right?
Yes, and frictionless bearings, and surfaces also do not slow down objects. Guess which of these three items exist in the real world: hint, it's zero.
It's not futile: it's Congress spurring innovation! Yeah, on workarounds for the law, but innovation nonetheless.
This seems analogous to the broken window fallacy in economics.
I agreed with most of your writing.
However, China is a big country. There are most than 100 dialects spoken in China.
Ah yes, I have of course fallen into the trap of assuming that Chinese is Mandarin is Chinese. To note though, those 100 "dialects" are actually more mutually intelligible than Swedish/Norwegian/Danish are from each other. But then a language is just a dialect with an army, right? I mean, Moldovia keeps asserting that they speak a different language, when it's immediately clear that it is identical to Romanian... "But we say 'soda' and they say 'pop'!" ... that's hardly even worth calling a "dialect"...
That's what the papers said, we all know in truth he died from rownriness.
You know the joke is that Koreans can say the 'L' sound, it is the Japanese who don't use it in their own language. Like a lot of that film is was supposed to show up the general ignorance of Americans about the world, but I suppose it was a bit too subtle and the joke whooshed over people's heads. Don't feel too bad though, most British people didn't get it either.
For the record, I got the original joke.
Now, in fact, Japanese doesn't use the same sounds as English "l" (lateral alveolar approximant) or "r" (alveolar approximant), but rather something reasonably different from both: a retroflex tap. However, as Japanese uses this to transliterate or approximate the pronunciation of both sounds in English, we tend to hear a discrepancy between both, and usually interpret this as the sound corresponding to an allophone for the other. So, English speakers tend to hear a Japanese person saying "r" instead of what we expect "l", but equally tend to hear a Japanese person saying "l" instead of what we expect "r".
Getting to Korean, they actually only have one phoneme for "l" and "r" as well, but it works differently from how it does in Japanese, in that the two sounds are distinct, but they are just allophones of each other. Thus while a Korean can typically pronounce "lice" just fine, they cannot typically properly pronounce "kilo-", instead using a flap instead of a lateral approximant. Meanwhile they will typically pronounce "rice" as "lice", and "aria" as a flap instead of an approximant.
Finally, Chinese has two phonemes that are interpreted as "l" and "r". The lateral approximant ("l") being typical, but the "r" phoneme corresponding with a voiced retroflex sibilant. English speakers typically interpret the latter as an "r"-ish sound, because it is retroflex, but in Russian, the phoneme is considered a "zh" noise similar to the "s" in "pleasure". This could cause Chinese speakers to approximate the "r" sound with an "l", rather than their voiced retroflex sibilant which orthographically appears closer, but actually shares little in common.
So this "Asians can't pronounce 'l's" has some basis in ... well, I'll call it pseudo-fact. In reality, all the languages disagree a lot about "l"s and "r"s proper, so much so that English's IPA transcription usually renders the alveolar approximant as an alveolar trill; a completely different form of articulation, that neither American English nor British English actually use! There are actually about 11 different forms of articulations (according to the IPA) that correspond to "r"s and "l"s in various languages, and none of the languages precisely agree about how to divide them up properly, because a language usually only ever interprets two phonemes out of all of them, but some as low as one (Japanese and Korean), or some even up to three (Spanish). So, once you start adding up the possible combinations of "what is r?" and "what is l?" you get into pretty murky waters quite quickly.
, I had my Oxycotin prescription renewed without question, or hassle for about 2 months (at one point, they later switched me to Vicodin, same stuff, just a higher Tylenol to narcotic ratio).
You are thinking of oxycodone, which is a different formulation of hydrocodone. They have about the same strength, but oxycodone is generally more effective at treating pain. Typically if you've become resistant to hydrocodone, you can switch to oxycodone and have better effectiveness for a short period. They metabolize into the same chemicals. Oxycontin is an extended release version of oxycodone, that typically lasts for 24 hours. Its also a much higher dosage than what you find in percocet (5-10mg oxycodone and 325mg tylenol). You can also get vicodin with 5-10mg of hydrocodone and 325-500mg of tylenol.
This clearly looks well researched and knowledgeable about the pharmacology involved. Say, that I'm allergic to morphine (because I am), are oxycodone, and hydrocodone different enough that I wouldn't be allergic to them? Or rather, what I mean is, is there a high or low correlation between allergy to morphine and those two opiates?
Why I ask, is because I know that I am allergic to morphine (was told by doctors, kept them informed, later I had a spider vein inflammation from an injection given only because I was screaming bloody murder, and they decided the risk was worth it (I generally agree with this decision)), yet I have never had an apparent allergic response to any other opiates that I have taken in pill form.
I'm kind of rather clueless, and while I could probably work out an answer, it would take me a long time of study, much longer than I think is really necessary for a "I wonder..."
Apparently, my mileage varies greatly from others. I had a UTI, and they gave me a narcotic. No questions asked, just "here's a week's supply". And since I had 100% coverage, I didn't even give them any cash. It felt weird getting narcotics for just a signature, but there you go.
Later on, during recovery from some major surgery, I had my Oxycotin prescription renewed without question, or hassle for about 2 months (at one point, they later switched me to Vicodin, same stuff, just a higher Tylenol to narcotic ratio).
Although, I suppose in the surgical instances, no DEA agent is ever going to question why you're giving a patient narcotics after surgery... and then in the first case, I was peeing blood, so... probably no reason to expect to be hassled about that as well. Then of course, none of these three were for chronic pain, but rather for acute pain, that was expected to subside relatively quickly.
Come to think of it, after I had my big motorcycle crash, I think they gave me a short-term supply of narcotics as well, no questions asked. But then again, also not for chronic pain.
Meh, I don't know. I suppose what I'm saying is that I've never had trouble getting any narcotics. In fact, beyond the signing for it, I don't think I've ever had any more hassle getting narcotics than getting any other prescription drug. But then as noted, all of it was short-term, and none of it chronic. Likewise, all of them were well justified pain prescriptions.
Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".
Isn't the Sun's atmosphere supposed to be holy freakin' hell hotter than the Sun itself? Me, I'll just say "Way to go, Lovejoy!" (as in "Hunt for Red October").
Cool stuff.
I think it might be something like the Leidenfrost effect. The sun's atmosphere vaporizes comet, and these vaporized comet parts shield the rest of the core from vaporizing. Only, this would have to work with the vapor blocking the radiation heat rather than the convection/conductive heat that the typical Leidenfrost uses. a.k.a. a sort of über-Leidenfrost effect.
Not sure this news item posted on the right web site. Don't you think this is mission creep, timothy?
While I understand the incredulity of a nerd/geek having kids, there is yet a one-word simple answer... MAGNETS!
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is considered to be composed of four "countries": The Netherlands, Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao.
Cool! A recursive kingdom definition.
Not really. The "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is technically distinct from the "Netherlands". It's like how your "Linux Operating System" is distinct from your "Linux Kernel", which cause some people to hold the position that the former should be called "GNU/Linux" to make it clearly distinct, and not to minimalize the importance of the GNU tools in the OS package.
Likewise, there is some political butthurt that the Kingdom is called "Netherlands", when the Netherlands is only a single part of the Kingdom. Thus, usually in Dutch the Kingdom is referred to as "the Kingdom" (translated from Dutch), while outside of the Kingdom, it's usually more common to refer to the Kingdom as a whole as the "Netherlands". Which isn't really as bad as it seems, most languages colloquially refer to the Kingdom as "Holland", which is an even smaller partition of the smaller partition of the Netherlands. While oft cited as a Synecdoche, it is technically a meta-Syncedoche, in that Holland is just a part of a part of the Kingdom.
... we don't trust the average american to understand the difference...
A wise policy. ;)
The Netherlands, the UK, maybe not quite the UAE.
An "emirate" is the Arabic equivalent to a kingdom, so yeah, the UAE as well.
"Dragging" me by my backpack would be a fast way to a broken face, at minimum. Get some self defense training, and be aware of your environment.
Yes, self defense courses are a perfect choice for my mother, who has bones so brittle that she's 6 standard deviations under the mean bone density.
No, not all women are this fragile, but your wonderfully simplistic advice completely ignores the complex realities of life. The advice for crime victims is almost always universally: "don't fight back, they might kill you for it."
Dead men cant sue or testify.
Funny thing about that... a dead man's estate can still sue, and often a great number of things that a person says just before dying become admissible even though they would be hearsay if he were still alive. (Ok, oddly, the belief that one is about to die is really all that is necessary. If Alice who has been shot by all appearances fatally says, "Bob murdered me!" Then even if Alice survives, the statement could be used to impeach a later statement by Alice that Bob had not shot her.)
But still, relying upon the death of your victim to save you, really shows an ignorant position about the law. Dead man do sue (technically their estate, or heirs), their statements can start to be used even though they would otherwise be hearsay if the person had lived, and criminal law doesn't care about either of those.
As humorous as that is, it isn't a government regulation. At least, not in the sense that I think you're presenting. NAD is an regulatory body set up by the cosmetics industry to police itself.
Eh... not government regulation, but close enough. It's an industry self-regulation. Which usually means that it's only going to get called out if it's something so obviously and blatantly wrong that everyone else goes, "hey! not fair!"
In this case, exaggerating the effects of the makeup make the advertisement useless for evaluating the product. I think their reasoning is totally sound (of course it is, it's industry self-regulation): if your product lengthens lashes, then you shouldn't need to lengthen them further in post production.
Since when did cosmetics, and most especially the advertisements thereof, have anything to do with reality? They are like real life photoshop.
Which is entirely the point. You can't evaluate the makeup if it's muddled with other effects.
It's like saying "paint.exe can produce beautiful images; I mean, look at what we produced!" Yet, the picture were later edited with photoshop. How am I to tell how good paint.exe is, when photoshop has made the image far better than it normally would be?
They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Actually, they're protecting against fraudulent advertising. If I'm looking at an add for mascara, then I should expect that the model is wearing the mascara, and that the effects of the mascara aren't being modified beyond that of the mascara itself.
It's like an ad for a car, where the car has been photoshopped to look nicer. That's not actually the car!
Yes, someone else above is arguing that makeup itself is essentially real-life photoshopping, but then that is kind of the point. If the makeup is working properly, then the advertisements shouldn't need more photoshopping. How am I to evaluate the effectiveness or worth of the makeup, if the makeup's effects are muddled with other effects?
If I park somewhere that has a reasonable chance of a smash-and-grab, I take valuables with me.
Agreed. I had a shifty landlord, and we were involved in legal process against him (temporary restraining order already obtained). We thought he might be stupid enough to do something stupid, (he had already grabbed a piece of evidence out of my hands and ripped it up IN THE COURTROOM HALLS) but I let my guard down, and he surprised me with how stupid he could be, when he broke into my place and stole my laptop and briefcase with all my legal stuff (including evidence).
My lesson learned? Don't give people opportunity.
Flipping up to the summary though:
... low-tech purse snatching...
The recommendations I've read about this have been: don't attach your purse to your body, and if someone snatches your purse, just let them go. There are horror stories of a woman holding on to her purse, or getting caught up in it, and being dragged a long distance by the person stealing their purse. So, don't ever sling it across yourself, and don't clutch to it too tightly. Your well being and health are more important than your purse (no matter what it contains).
I suppose the same advice could carry over to some stuff carried by guys.
I did not know we had states in Europe...
Yes. In English the word "state" refers to a sovereign political entity. The "United States of America" referred to each individual state as an individual and sovereign authority over their own land. However, as the USA has become more unitary rather than distinct, the term "state" in a political sense has experienced a form of semantic shift wherein people believe that it means a political subunit of a larger country.
In fact, the USA as a whole is a state, Germany is a state, the UN is a congregation of states. If you want more fun, The Kingdom of the Netherlands is considered to be composed of four "countries": The Netherlands, Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao. These collections of smaller politically sovereign entities into a larger politically sovereign entity causes a lot of confusion in this regard.
I am not saying, as you think I've said, that transpersons' gender identities and expressions are not genuine.
The word "emulate" carries a connotation that the emulating person is not being genuine.
Your whole "best effort" paragraph does little to make this sound any better. If a young girl from birth were raised as if a boy, and later decided to shurk this rearing and become a woman, would she be putting on her "best effort" to "emulate" a female, because she doesn't share a girlhood?
For your argument to work, it would have to apply equally well to children who have (abusively) been forced to conform to the opposite gender. That physiological conditions are not relevant, but rather the life experiences of those individuals. And what of children who transition early in life? Is this child emulating being a female as well? Even though she has lived full-time as a female since the 5th grade, and was afforded the courtesy of being gender-non-conformant even before that?
That is not a condemnation, or indictment, or any sort of projected negativity, but an acknowledgement of demonstrable developmental difference.
It would be folly for one to argue that trans people experience the same upbringing and development as cis people of the gender with which the trans person identifies. However, that does not invalidate the genuine nature of the trans person's gender, and certainly does not warrant the term "emulate". If a transperson is acting genuinely and honestly, then there is no "emulation" going on, they are being an honest representation of a woman, or man.
A transwoman is a woman, a transman is a man. They are not "emulating" their gender. Do they share identical developmental histories? No, but then gay people experience different developmental histories as well, sometimes gender non-conforming even. There is an incredible amount of variation in the world, and singling out one group of people and accusing them of "emulation" of their behaviors is offensive and wrong.
You claim to have trans history, yet you clearly don't show any obvious deference towards the feelings of those people. Black people are not immune to racism against blacks, and women are not immune to sexism against women, and homosexuals? All one need do is point to the all of the anti-gay politicians who turn out to be homosexual to demonstrate that homophobia is not limited to the heterosexuals.
Do transpeople have different histories from cispeople? Yes, they do. But there is no reason why that should depict them as less than genuine, especially considering how vast the differences in development of cisgendered people that can occur without even considering the transgendered.
(BTW, it was abundantly clear that your sexuality included a fetish for MTFs. I just didn't touch on it, because it's entirely irrelevant.)
So is talking about her to anybody else. Are you suggesting that he should be forbidden from doing that as well? If not, why not? What is the difference between telling other people and blogging? What if he wrote a book and published it? Would that constitute a breach of the restraining order as well?
Yes. Question not applicable. Nothing relevant to this case. Yes, writing a book would adversely affect her privacy as well. Yes, adversely affecting her privacy is obviously a breach of the restraining order.
Bear in mind that I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy on the point that he deliberately communicated with this girl's friends and family... I only defend his right to speak his mind to others.
He voluntarily forfeited his right to speak his mind to others.
Let's take a different example. Say that Alice is being discriminated against by her employer ACME. Alice takes ACME to court, and they eventually decide to settle the case. Alice agrees within the settlement not to talk about the settlement, or the details of the case. Would Alice be in breach of the settlement if she talked about the case? Yes, indeed she would, no matter who she talked to. (There are typically exceptions in these settlements for immediate family, and then confidentiality typically ensures that speaking about it with a lawyer, or to a spiritual adviser to obtain spiritual absolution will not endanger breach of contract.) She could speak to Bob, who lives in a remote village of a small Polynesian island, and she would still be in breach of contract.
The man willingly consented to a restriction against sharing any of her private details with ANYONE, not just her friends, family, or people who know her.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. It has no legal force of law. Also, none of the rights listed in the Declaration are "the right to free speech".
Oddly, these "inalienable" rights are regularly infringed upon by every government:
Life: some governments do not practice capital punishment. However, if they do, they're violating your "inalienable" right to life.
Liberty: all governments maintain arrest, and imprisonment. These would be a prima facie violation of your "inalienable" right to liberty.
Pursuit of Happiness: "Happiness" as used here is actually synonymous with "Fortune". We needn't list all the ways that governments interfere with the ability of people to earn money. (The Slaughterhouse Cases specifically noted that the government has no duty to protect a person's ability to make an income.)
The FCC is implementing a law passed by Congress. The FCC did not "pass" anything.
This. I was waiting on the law, which was passed earlier this year, to go into effect. I wasn't aware that it was just the time for the FCC to enact a policy about it, which itself would take a year to actually come into enforcement. :(
We need the "Caps Lock Annhilation Program" to stop loud posters.
POPVLVS ROMAE ANTIQVAE HUIC LEGI PROPONITVR ADVERSENT
I understand what you are saying about the Amazonian depictions and I agree that these depictions of Amazon societies are a construct of men.
In the same way, Bayonetta is not "embracing her sexuality", because she never actually lived. She is fictitious, and her actions are not her own informed choice, but rather her "actions" and "choices" are thrust upon her by the male programmers and game designers, who threw every sexual fantasy that they had upon her.
However, the depiction of Bayonetta does not mean that every real-life equivalent of Bayonetta is a sexist representation of masculine fantasy. In fact, were Bayonetta actually alive, she would be a feminist depiction of a woman embracing her sexuality.
It is thus important to realize that while Amazonian depictions project a masculine fantasy that women in power would respond the same as they do, it does not actually mean that were such a gender-role reversed culture be found that it would be a fantasy of masculine ideals. Neither does the actual existence of such a culture show that the masculine fantasies are not fantasies. (A bit of an example of "true knowledge" vs. "belief that just happened to be true".)
Again, I assert, there exists a primitive culture wherein the men are the subjugated gender, and as they are the subjugated gender, it falls upon them to be attractive and entice a mate to marry them. Regardless of this apparent full reversal of gender roles, the thing that makes this distinct and different from masculine fantasy, is that the women of this tribe do NOT do the physical activities of providing for food on most occasions, because there is a recognition in the culture that males do in fact have better muscular strength and endurance. The men get food by climbing trees, and other physically demanding actions, while the women obtain food in shortfalls by using their brains.
What makes this specific and extant culture interesting is not what gender roles are reversed (wearing make up, and being pretty are obviously cultural inclinations that would be exploited by a subjugated gender) but rather what gender roles are NOT reversed, but simple recontextualized, or reframed, in order to fit their believe system that women are the superior gender. (i.e. Men are stronger physically, sure, but who cares, they're idiots, and would be nothing without women to guide them.)
Addressing your "transphobia", the distinction of transgender vs. cisgender is something that should only ever matter between a person and those providing them medical care. There is no justifiable reason for society to treat them differently from cisgendered individuals of the same gender. Your statement that transgendered people are "emulating" the other gender belies a wrong assumption, and a hateful position similar to suggesting that black people are lazy. What are the "realities" of transgendered people not being of the gender that they IDENTIFY with? Genes, gonads, hormones, phenotypical traits? What of these apply to transgendered individuals but not Caster Semenya? Genes, and gonads. What of these narrowed traits do not also apply to women with CAIS? None. So, a woman can be a woman, and still have a 46-XY genotype, a man can be a man and still have a 46-XX genotype. A woman can still be a woman and have testies, as a man can be a man with ovaries and/or a uterus. A woman can still be a woman and have hormone levels consistent with men, and a man can be a man and have hormone levels consistent with women. A woman can still be a woman and have masculine features, and a man can still be a man and have feminine features. So, what really makes a woman a woman, or a man a man? There is no answer you can give that excludes the transgendered, without unnecessarily excluding intersexed individuals.
Your position that transgendered people are "acting", or "emulating" their identified gender implies that they are not genuinely the gender with which they identify with, and what does any of the gender of another person have to do wi
NDA's are something you sign so that you can receive a benefit that you would not otherwise get, and you are free to refuse to sign one without any legal consequence. That's somewhat different from a restraining order, where the restrained person has no choice in the matter unless they are willing to also go to jail.
A respondent to a restraining order always has to the option to oppose the restraining order in a hearing, wherein the court will hear arguments as to if the restraining order should be granted or not. If at the end of it, the court finds that the restraining order is just, he may end up granting it, which is a proper following of due process. (As I note above, due process can take away your life and liberty already, so why shouldn't it be capable of restricting one's free speech?)
Take it this way. We have a right to be free, and conduct our actions as we see fit. However, arrest abridges this freedom. Does that mean that all arrest is illegal? No, because arrest and imprisonment are granted by due process.
All of this is moot however, because the guy consented to the restraining order. The guy himself agreed to not harass her, or adversely affect her privacy. (Posting information about her online most certainly adversely affects her privacy, no matter what argument you attempt to present. It is prima facie divulging of private details.)