Having a degree in physics means nothing if you didn't do anything in this branch of physics. First off, the electron is not the lightest particle. Strictly speaking, the electron neutrino weighs in at less than 2.2 eV, where the electron weighs in at 0.511 MeV. Then you have the tau neutrino, which weighs in at 15.5 MeV. Then you have the proton, which weighs 938 MeV. After that we have the tauon, which has a mass of 1.7 GeV. All of which, so far, are leptons. So while 135 GeV is fairly high, it's not unreasonable. While it may not intuitively make sense, what about modern physics (i.e. quantum, relativistic, etc...) does these days?
Exactly. This is why I think that all legislation should be read aloud. Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote. If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.
Well, when you can tell me who exactly is being defamed, and who is the perpetrator of said defamation, and how exactly anyone implied that defamation was Constitutionally protected, then I'll listen to you.
People use the series of tubes quote because it's a nice short quote that demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the internet. The whole damn speech that "series of tubes" is a part of is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the older posts in this discussion for better explanations of why the "series of tubes" thing is just a symptom of his ignorance. You are completely missing the point: This man has power over things he doesn't even understand. It's the same level of frustration you get when your manager explains the latest programming paradigm to you: you just want to rip his head off and get him to shut the fuck up so you can do your goddamn job.
See, I'm only really worried about sharks in a water situation. If I saw a shark on the street, I'd be like "What? Fuck you." It's the opposite of how I feel towards lions.
Because they're trying to expand their user base. By increasing so-called usability, they hope to grab people who aren't already MTG fans. So they add in things they think they've seen in well-selling games, and hope it works. They're blatantly ignoring their user base, knowing that they'll go on buying the staple products that keep them floating in the black.
I'm sure the RIAA will have some excuse as to why this isn't unconstitutional, and was in fact the idea the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up copyright. Good arguments, but I'm a touch wary that the judge will just ignore any constitutional issue. And even if they do listen, the RIAA will try and get out of it so no precedent can be made.
Well, the test I took involved answering some social and organizing related questions, doing an eye emotion test, tossing balls at a velcro target, mental rotation, peg stacking, 2d/4d ratio (2nd and 4th fingers), and following a specific set of directions regarding a mechanical device.
I don't know. I didn't come up with the hypothesis. If I recall correctly though, it has something to do with an excess of testosterone while in the uterus. Some girls have more testosterone than guys at times.
Men do tend to be more interested in technical things. In fact, the cog. sci. department has a related hypothesis that they're currently testing. The hypothesis is that Asperger's syndrome and the autistic spectrum is just the extreme case of the male brain (literally: testosterone poisoning).
Well, the idea is to see if there are any differences. Sexism is only sexism if it's baseless. If you have something like this to demonstrate that there are differences between the genders, then making decisions based on those differences is qualified. However, like they said, there is no difference. The smartest person in my school in every subject that I took in my last year of high school was female (except Music, but there were only 3 people). Of course, anecdotal evidence, take it with a grain of salt. The point is that finding out that there are no differences makes any attempts to make decisions based on gender alone an offensive and ignorant thing.
It's unconstitutional because it is an unnecessary and unreasonable limit on free speech. Forbidding death threats is a reasonable restriction on free speech. Forbidding yelling fire in a crowded theater is a necessary restriction on free speech. Age verification for huge sections of the internet (remember, there are already laws stating that you must be 18+ to watch porn; if you lie, it's not their fault) is neither reasonable nor necessary, especially when the guiding words are "harmful to minors". Guess what? Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. That's probably considered harmful to children by someone. Now/. requires age verification. So yeah, this is unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but does anyone even notice when the drummer dies? On stage, even.
Having a degree in physics means nothing if you didn't do anything in this branch of physics. First off, the electron is not the lightest particle. Strictly speaking, the electron neutrino weighs in at less than 2.2 eV, where the electron weighs in at 0.511 MeV. Then you have the tau neutrino, which weighs in at 15.5 MeV. Then you have the proton, which weighs 938 MeV. After that we have the tauon, which has a mass of 1.7 GeV. All of which, so far, are leptons. So while 135 GeV is fairly high, it's not unreasonable. While it may not intuitively make sense, what about modern physics (i.e. quantum, relativistic, etc...) does these days?
So the banks lost more money. The bank can still get by. The stupid couple? They're in a much worse situation.
Exactly. This is why I think that all legislation should be read aloud. Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote. If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.
Well, when you can tell me who exactly is being defamed, and who is the perpetrator of said defamation, and how exactly anyone implied that defamation was Constitutionally protected, then I'll listen to you.
Wikipedia link that I just bothered to look for.
Nintendo DS mod chip. Wired has a short blog post as well.
People use the series of tubes quote because it's a nice short quote that demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the internet. The whole damn speech that "series of tubes" is a part of is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the older posts in this discussion for better explanations of why the "series of tubes" thing is just a symptom of his ignorance. You are completely missing the point: This man has power over things he doesn't even understand. It's the same level of frustration you get when your manager explains the latest programming paradigm to you: you just want to rip his head off and get him to shut the fuck up so you can do your goddamn job.
See, I'm only really worried about sharks in a water situation. If I saw a shark on the street, I'd be like "What? Fuck you." It's the opposite of how I feel towards lions.
Because they're trying to expand their user base. By increasing so-called usability, they hope to grab people who aren't already MTG fans. So they add in things they think they've seen in well-selling games, and hope it works. They're blatantly ignoring their user base, knowing that they'll go on buying the staple products that keep them floating in the black.
Those are parodies. Scrabulous is a product with similar gameplay and name to Scrabble.
David Byrne, is that you?
Sir, you seem to be suffering a severe case of RAS syndrom. I suggest you take some time off work to go see your family doctor.
You parsed that wrong. He meant "DRM free" and "commercial free" content.
Hopeful? You must be new here.
I'm sure the RIAA will have some excuse as to why this isn't unconstitutional, and was in fact the idea the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up copyright. Good arguments, but I'm a touch wary that the judge will just ignore any constitutional issue. And even if they do listen, the RIAA will try and get out of it so no precedent can be made.
Well, the test I took involved answering some social and organizing related questions, doing an eye emotion test, tossing balls at a velcro target, mental rotation, peg stacking, 2d/4d ratio (2nd and 4th fingers), and following a specific set of directions regarding a mechanical device.
I don't know. I didn't come up with the hypothesis. If I recall correctly though, it has something to do with an excess of testosterone while in the uterus. Some girls have more testosterone than guys at times.
The real problem is that the few who think it'd be a great place to pillage also have the means to do so.
Always whining. Boys are half the student body, might as well accommodate them. What, girls not smart enough to deal with that?
I can follow the logic, just not the logic that led you to the structure of your first sentence.
Men do tend to be more interested in technical things. In fact, the cog. sci. department has a related hypothesis that they're currently testing. The hypothesis is that Asperger's syndrome and the autistic spectrum is just the extreme case of the male brain (literally: testosterone poisoning).
Well, the idea is to see if there are any differences. Sexism is only sexism if it's baseless. If you have something like this to demonstrate that there are differences between the genders, then making decisions based on those differences is qualified. However, like they said, there is no difference. The smartest person in my school in every subject that I took in my last year of high school was female (except Music, but there were only 3 people). Of course, anecdotal evidence, take it with a grain of salt. The point is that finding out that there are no differences makes any attempts to make decisions based on gender alone an offensive and ignorant thing.
It's unconstitutional because it is an unnecessary and unreasonable limit on free speech. Forbidding death threats is a reasonable restriction on free speech. Forbidding yelling fire in a crowded theater is a necessary restriction on free speech. Age verification for huge sections of the internet (remember, there are already laws stating that you must be 18+ to watch porn; if you lie, it's not their fault) is neither reasonable nor necessary, especially when the guiding words are "harmful to minors". Guess what? Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. That's probably considered harmful to children by someone. Now /. requires age verification. So yeah, this is unconstitutional.
Neither, actually. One is about an island, and the other about celebrity public relations representatives.