You have to keep in mind that Tolkien's world during the third age is still very much one filled with magic, both still-active and lost relics. The magic has begun to fade and the age of men is approaching but it's still all around. And it's not like the swords are somehow one-of-a-kind super-special ones.
My overall point is that whenever there's a story about anyone using any kind of force against a woman there are tons of comments from people who are outraged that the police/a robbery victim/whatever would use violence against a woman(!!!11one) no matter how justified (woman had an AK-47 and some guy managed to knock her out before she fired it into a crowd? You can bet there are people online bashing the guy for using violence against a woman).
Seeing as I'm on the other end of the spectrum, male, tall and not always so innocent-looking (that is, it's pretty easy for me to look like I'm up to no good) it tends to irk me (especially since I'm hardly a violent individual, it just seems a lot of people assume I'm more dangerous than I really am).
She clearly resisted arrest for several minutes,
So a small, middle aged woman managed to resist arrest for several minutes? Wow. Those cops should be ashamed of themselves. Really, how did cops survive 10 years ago? Did they all get sound ass kickings from tiny middle aged women?
Seriously, if you can't arrest someone like that without a taser, then you're so badly trained that you should not be allowed out on the street.
Well, the same rules should apply regardless of who they're arresting. As a 6'4" guy who works out regularly I fully expect that if the police ever decide to arrest me for anything I'm likely to get maced and beaten simply because I'm a big guy, the same should be done to short skinny women as well, maybe then people will care.
The next step would be for bouncers at bars and clubs to apply the same standards to both men and women (here in Sweden I have myself experienced being told that I needed to "calm down" and that I'd had too much to drink after my first beer of the night because, well I'm not sure, but minutes later several very drunk young women were dancing on chairs and rather than getting threats of violence from the bouncer while he held his hand on his baton he simply calmly asked them not to dance on the chairs)...
SafeSearch used to have three settings:
What has some of us upset is that Google removed the "Off" setting. Instead they're saying "yeah well if you want porn just add 'anal rape tentacle gangbang' to your search string". Which would make sense if the only/ reason for setting SafeSearch to Off was to browse porn. However, in practice I've found that outside of the workplace it often makes sense to set SafeSearch to Off in order to get more accurate results, quite often fairly innocent images would not show up with SafeSearch set to Strict or Moderate.
Well, the problem is, as stated further up in the thread. What if you want, for example, to find pictures of something which by American moral standards is considered slightly dirty? Search for just what you're looking for and you get the neutered results, add "porn" or some other explicit term and suddenly you're getting hardcore porn instead. One major advantage of being able to just leave the filter off is that you can get "raw" results (yeah, I've written some basic code for searching through data, splitting data into N-grams, assigning relations to words based on their TF-IDF and all that junk, I know the results aren't "raw" in the same sense as looking for documents where your exact term pops up the most times, but at least you could turn off that damn SafeSearch filter in the past).
So? In the past you had to disable SafeSearch to see them, now you have to go out of your way to find them by repeatedly tweaking your search terms to figure out how to trick Google into showing those results.
As others have pointed out, the biggest problem isn't if you're looking for hardcore porn, if you search for "violent anal gangbang" chances are you'll get what you're looking for, the problem is the gray areas, those searches that aren't for that kind of material but which aren't for "fluffy happy bunny captions" either...
I tried this mode on the OS X client recently and it was extremely clunky and was mostly a pain in the ass to work with.
It's a great first try at a ten foot interface but they've definitely got some work to do.
Yeah, sadly this is one of those things that work much better on Windows than OS X or any Linux setup I've tried (Sure, if you want to get picky about it you could write your own patches to deal with this, perhaps even introducing a new abstraction layer, but for an average user this is hardly an option).
Wow, here in Sweden SMS is finally and very slowly starting to die out in favor of various online methods of messaging (Apple's Messenger thing seems to be growing and lots of people just use Facebook's chat function with push alerts on their cellphones).
I would've paid for this bundle if Company of Heroes had been available for OS X and Linux. I already have a copy for Windows that I've tried to get running under Wine (with poor results).
No interest in Windows-only games for me though.
I thought Emacs was the leading virtual LISP machine. It's got a bunch of neat software that will run on it. Sadly the default text editor is a bit clunky.
I run my own mail server and I try to keep SpamAssassin relatively up-to-date.
Did have a period when I didn't update it for six months or so though and didn't really detect any more spam than usual slipping through (and no legitimate mail being marked as spam either).
If 40 is the new 60 does that mean I can retire at 45? That'd be neat.
In my experience it tends to be less a failing of the design and infrastructure of the Internet as a whole and more a failing of whoever is hosting the content (bogged-down server(s) or lack of bandwidth on their end).
There are always exceptions, of course, I know a few people who insist on using "wireless broadband" even when they have access to FTTH/FTTP services simply because they chose the wireless service a year or two ago and they keep telling themselves it's "good enough" (while waiting 30-90 seconds for Youtube videos to buffer enough to start playing) much in the same way that they feel their TV reception is "good enough" when the signal doesn't drop out too often on days with good weather (and it's pretty much unwatchable on rainy or snowy days). These people are the exception though, they're the ones who just won't admit that their setup is broken for whatever reason (a lot of times the Swedish word "dumsnålhet" would seem to be fitting, it translates to something like "cheap/stingy to the point of stupidity", it's when you've got a $1500 gaming PC and you won't spend another $3 per month on broadband because it's "too much money" or you've got a $2000 3D TV and you can't be bothered replacing the antenna cable because a new one costs $10).
Sure, because running around in the woods practicing how to repel a soviet invasion that was unlikely to happen since the USSR had already imploded on itself was much more useful for society than going to college...
Also, I didn't refuse to serve, I was simply very clear on my lack of interest and they chose to let me off the hook (technically up until we got rid of conscription they could've decided to reverse that decision and even now if a war pops up they can bring conscription back and make me go through Grundläggande Militärutbildning).
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
