Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:At Odds (Score 1) 445

by kencurry (#48129967) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

> "Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.

Doesn't seem at odds to me.

People who act impulsively for their own immediate gratification are more likely to get divorced than those who plan stuff intricately and have the combined social pressure of all their friends and relatives acting on them. Well, knock me down with a feather.

My wife and I eloped. Our reason was that we had relatives in east coast, Mexico, pacific northwest, and we are in SoCal. The planning was getting too complicated and expensive, and finding a time when everyone could travel was next to impossible. So we got married in Spain, traveled in Europe, and we had a really nice reception party when we got back.

That was 17 years, and two kids ago - still going strong! ;-)

Comment: Re:Incredible (Score 1) 429

by kencurry (#48114611) Attached to: BitHammer, the BitTorrent Banhammer

Except the analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be that, instead of yelling "hey, leave some for the rest of us" (which is what SHOULD be done), this michaelcole has chosen to beat the guy to death with a crowbar. That lands you in prison.

No, you are resorting to extreme hyperbole (as are many other commenters here) by equating the submitters actions with violence. The offender is certainly unharmed in the submitter's case and in the analogy given. An improvement on the analogy would be to, instead of shouting "leave some for the others", place a barrier between the offender's and the food, preventing them from getting any more. The submitter advocates coordination with the network owner on the github readme (though this might not be in good faith). In the analogy, the restauranteur would likely escort such an offender out of their restaurant. The only reason they do not do this in the submitter's situation is that the owners are technologically incapable of doing so.

However, it is on the business owner to stop the abuser, it is not for the other clientele to take aggressive action on their own. The best course of action as a consumer is to go elsewhere.

Look, in a functioning society, (or is a smaller sense a social setting), the people involved understand their roles and act accordingly. When society lack these norms, you have chaotic, random behavior, which in the end leads to more problems.

Comment: Re:Prove him right some more (Score 2) 263

by kencurry (#48107279) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana
X100 with LSD.

I used to think that it was important for people to experience the drug "sense of profound" to get an understanding of what your brain should feel like in "deep mode." Later, I realized that you can get this "sense of profound" watching e.g., inane TV show while high; thus, in fact, the chemical modification was useless. Better off not wasting your time with the drugs, just get on with trying to learn how to think.

Comment: Re:Who pays the ticket? (Score 1) 475

by kencurry (#47706373) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Actually no. The reason Google's cars do this is because they (for now) drive in California. The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed. You won't get a speeding ticket, because you are following the law. Presumably, in other areas, the car will be reprogrammed with knowledge of that area's driving rules, and will or won't do this as appropriate.

Wow, is that true? I drive in Cali, I guess I should know that but it's been so long since I looked at the handbook. On my last speeding ticket, I did tell the cop that I was merely traveling equal to traffic, and he shot me a look like I was an idiot. If I knew that tidbit, I might have tried to fight the ticket.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken