Slashdot Mirror

More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc

I've read other articles that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.

Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!

I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!

You're not reading the news, are you? On this planet, the central bank loans money to the government and commercial and commercial banks at well below the inflation rate. The europeans are actually paying the Swiss to borrow their currency now! http://www.bbc.com/news/busine... http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

Not justifying the massive spying, but simply addressing the core logic presented here: Even if something is not 100% effective, does not mean it's useless:
Why have cops? Crime still happens. Why have diagnostic medical tests, yet people still get diseases. May as well stop chemotherapy too, I still have about 5% of the original cancer cells left that the first four treatments didn't kill. Many plots have been thwarted, particularly lately, and except in cases where a previously unknown informant steps forward out of the blue, the information comes from their spies and monitoring.
I'm only saying the objection to the spying should be based on privacy and personal freedom, not it's effectiveness; that's a different argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://www.theguardian.com/pol...
Now, you easily argue, tally up all those thwarted attacks, are they worth the cost to our liberties? Again, I'm not debating that. Clearly privacy is dead, between the data-mining corporations, and the governments.
We are product. We are potential suspects.

In the UK we can set preferences with the telephone preference service . But another is to set up a premium rate line and rake in the money - although it might be polite to set up another regular number for family and friends.

Typical German bullshit. German working week is 35 hours and Greek working week is 40 hours.

http://www.theguardian.com/new...

'Facts'? When did people start believing them? If they are where you say they are, then you too know where to look. There's too many to list, and they say things you don't want to hear. Citing precedence is more than sufficient. Of course not for you, but since you will simply spend your time poking holes to prop up the beliefs you cling to, I'm going to leave it that. And be happy, the mods are on your side.

Economics isn't an ideology.

Bullshit, it sure isn't objective science, it's models, based on dubious assumptions which aren't reflective of anything other than the beliefs of the person who made them, and then using mathematics of dubious quality to "prove" what your ideology tells you.

Are you retarded or just ignorant?

Are you an asshole or a douchebag?

I'm saying that when people say "if you cut taxes it will stimulate the economy", that is a purely ideological position, not grounded in objective fact. And economics serves no purpose if it isn't down to implementing policy, which is inherently idological.

And again, it is like you are saying physics cannot be a science because there is many unproven theories that coexists.

No, I'm saying physics still boils down to actual objective reality, and in no fucking way shape or form does economics do that, and never has.

Frankly, you are an idiot.

Frankly, you're an asshole who thinks too highly of his own opinion.

So far you've failed to offer anything intelligent, just the cowardly ad hominem attacks of a worthless moron with nothing new to add.

So, I'll tell you what, here's a piece by someone who has a fucking Nobel prize in "economic science".
One problem with economics is that it is necessarily focused on policy, rather than discovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as a guide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us as the internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organelles of a living cell. We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics, more practical than spiritual.

There is no Nobel prize for engineering, though there should be. True, the chemistry prize this year looks a bit like an engineering prize, because it was given to three researchers - Martin Karplus, Michael Levitt, and Arieh Warshel - "for the development of multiscale models of complex chemical systems" that underlie the computer programs that make nuclear magnetic resonance hardware work. But the Nobel Foundation is forced to look at much more such practical, applied material when it considers the economics prize.

The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention. The Nobel prize is designed to reward those who do not play tricks for attention, and who, in their sincere pursuit of the truth, might otherwise be slighted.

Why is it called a prize in "economic sciences", rather than just "economics"? The other prizes are not awarded in the "chemical sciences" or the "physical sciences."

Fields of endeavour that use "science" in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have "science" in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins.

So, seriously, fuck off and grow up.

Economics is descriptive how what complex systems involving humans do. But is is NOT measuring some innate natural properties of how that actually works.

As soon as economics goes from measuring and describing, and steps into applying policy .... it utterly ceases to be a science.

an ally

Using the word "ally" here insinuates that the British-US relationship was as close as it is today. In fact, the WWI relationship was not nearly as cozy. The US provided the UK with massive amounts of war material, but at great cost. It's not absurd to say that a century or so of accrued wealth flowed from London to NYC. As a result of the UK's near-suffocation at the hands of German U-boats, they developed a healthy new respect for having a top-notch navy. Their problem was that the now very wealthy US also learned how important a top-notch navy was, and proceeded to get into an arms race with their ally. There was a very real fear that the new power would necessarily get into a conflict with the old power - kind of the same fears you hear about Sino-US relations today, though the analogy is not perfect. This tension was diffused quite a bit by the Washington Naval Treaty and follow-on treaties, but hopefully this illustrates that the relationship was not the same as it is today.

I agree with everything you said, but you got the money flow backwards.
Money went from USA --> Great Britain during WWI. The materials supplied to the Allies were paid for with loans largely from J.P.Morgans banks about ($9 billion in 1917 money).
That would be a lot of money from GB back to USA, if only the British paid off the debt, but after the war Great Britain did not pay the debts. For one reason or another it kept getting deferred due to things like the great depression, WWII, and other reason mostly having to do with J.PMorgan bank being bedfellows with the bank of London.
The last of the WWI debt will be paid March 9, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

After almost 100 years of inflation, the debt is now peanuts.

John Oliver makes this kinda shit. In fact, they crashed the site after he called them out for "cable company fuckery"

Read about it here: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

In addition, watch the whole segment here, it's wonderful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Twitter was given a subpoena, not a secret warrant, so there was nothing preventing them from notifying the account owners. And they lost that appeal.

The public at large is too engrossed in shows like American Idol to be concerned with what's going on in the country.

I thought it was so the world had stuff to read... like this

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

@least her gun protected her and her son from "bad guys".

So Google hands over the data of a brit, an icelander and (maybe?) a german. Was the data stored on servers local to their countries? That seems like a reasonable assumption given that each of those countries have their own domestic version of google.

Remember this? Judge may hold Microsoft in contempt after refusal to hand over foreign data.

Google is now officially more evil than microsoft. Not that I think MS has a chance of winning, and the only reason they are fighting back is because of the potential to lose business. But it is still better to have the megalocorp's interests aligned with good than with evil.

Google syncs (nowadays via encrypted links, so NSA et al can't tap it wholesale) data between multiple centers, so likely the data was (among other places) in the US.

US court order to a US corp for data residing in the US - doesn't leave much wiggle room compared to a US court order to a US corp for data held by an Irish corp (though associated) in Ireland and which release of would mean a breach of Irish law.

I'd say MS has a lot more to fight with...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.

Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.

The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.

Gwent police confirmed that the attack last Friday night was prompted by a confusion over the words "paedophile" and "paediatrician".

Most people that participate in stuff like this vandalism are usually "many bricks shy of a full load"; they are "dim-witted followers".

So Google hands over the data of a brit, an icelander and (maybe?) a german. Was the data stored on servers local to their countries? That seems like a reasonable assumption given that each of those countries have their own domestic version of google.

Remember this? Judge may hold Microsoft in contempt after refusal to hand over foreign data.

Google is now officially more evil than microsoft. Not that I think MS has a chance of winning, and the only reason they are fighting back is because of the potential to lose business. But it is still better to have the megalocorp's interests aligned with good than with evil.

Given people are so fucking stupid they will attack paediatricians thinking they are paedophiles

That really is true, btw.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...
Doctor driven out of home by vigilantes

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.

Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.

The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.

Gwent police confirmed that the attack last Friday night was prompted by a confusion over the words "paedophile" and "paediatrician".

Apparently apart from these people http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa... or these people http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... but hey believe what ever you want to believe. I think the word you were looking for was LulzSec rather than 'Anonymous' but then those members of LulzSec choose to temporarily associate themselves with the idea of 'Anonymous' and choose their own approach, including the decision by the masters FBI to commit crimes in others countries by molesting children ie grooming minors to commit crimes, supplying the tools, the knowledge and the targets and those agents should have been extradited and prosecuted for their criminal actions.

Courtesy of our beloved prime-minister's entirely feasible encryption ban.

It is interesting how some politicians use the fear after a terror attack to get more power to monitor normal people. The attacks in France could never have been stopped by monitoring online chatter, those terrorists were not stupid to communicate that way.
We can't allow politicians to turn the Internet into a police state, that is something that happens in China and North Korea, it can't happen in Europe

Courtesy of our beloved prime-minister's entirely feasible encryption ban.

Re:"The first amendment has officially been shredded, and now comes the icing on the cake."
Anonymity and privacy for whistleblowers is gone with systems like Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The ability to track back any contact with a journalist removes all anonymity. The privacy of the message could be lost to malware.
GCHQ captured emails of journalists from top international media (19 jan 2015)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...
The US always thought it was legally covered with a free and unrestrained press.
Re "Nobody seems to know anything at all about any of these other programs"
The UK media could be the way to understand the tracking and results.

The dinosaurs aren't all dead -- they just occasionally become McNuggets.

http://www.collegehumor.com/vi... (there's 8 minutes and 33 seconds of lens flares)

http://www.theguardian.com/fil...

Even Gjoni later admitted that didn't happen. But the *chan boards where he posted his long attack screed against his ex-girlfriend had been attacking Anita Sarkeesian for months, for the sin of showing totally made up clips of Grand Theft Auto and many other games being misogynist. (Oh, they weren't totally made up, they were right out of the game? Our bad, let's attack her for dissing Mario and Luigi, or harass Brianna Wu instead.)

Obama was elected twice;

Hey, fool, didn't you know that the votes do nothing? Our representatives do not represent us, We live in a plutocracy. Besides, since the paper trail has been erased and our voting machines are hacked, we might as well just ask the head of CIA or NSA who they want to be the next president (Once CIA head said "Me" another time he said "My son", currently looks like NSA wanted the Obamas and spy-friendly Clintons before that).

Please do not insinuate that I have we citizens have any control over our government. We do not. They have gone rogue, and the only reason we don't revolt is because. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." (from the US Declaration of Independence) We haven't quite suffered enough.

Fortunately our founding fathers gave us legal tools to use to replace our government without resorting to violent revolution (which the Pentagon has been gearing up to prevent, in the name of 'energy crisis' fears). We can fire congress and impeach the illegitimate presidents and judges; Failing this, we have the 2nd amendment.

Interesting thing about the 2nd amendment: Crypto was once classified as a munitions (essentially), so we should have the right to bear Crypto. Failing that, we have shown in the past that the 1st amendment right to publish crypto program source code. So, Obama is going to have to stomp on our 1st amendment rights. You can make it illegal to encrypt my own data, but I can just as simply (and legally) store and publish gigs of random noise (indistinguishable from encrypted data). Good luck outlawing archives of atmospheric noise, or proving that such are not encrypted messages. Also, every communication could potentially contain stenographically encoded data. The message could be in the inflection of my words, or my choice of phrases, even without any encryption system in use. Point being: Outlawing current encryption methods will do absolutely nothing to thwart "terrorist" communications. Tell you what it will do though: Ensure whomever suggests such legislation is never at peace from the deluge of messages from nerds with phones, pens, and keyboards in reach.

The problem is you.

No, the problem is not me. It is possible to have a problem without being the cause of it, moron.

[citation needed]

I'm glad you asked:

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

I've read that article and it does not support this statement that you made:

And just to prove the point, GamerGate swatted three of those SJWs in the past 2 weeks.

You want to try again?

[citation needed]

I'm glad you asked:

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

Applying the Cameron Solution, all we need to do is ban spam... or email. I confess I'm not quite clear.

China passes US as global Carbon emitter

Fucking moron.

Stastical modeling that makes a black yellow striped pattern look like a school bus, because it has no concept of anything and not intelligence in any sense of the word and that is the just what fits the statistical model.

In light of what you just said: what is this

So Elon Musk and worldwide-famous physicist Stephen Hawking spread FUD in your opinion?
http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]

http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]

I didn't know Elon Musk was a journalist:
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

Let alone worldwide-famous physicist Stephen Hawking:
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

The more pertinent question is actually why this crappy "story" was even published on /.

They don't have a "right to not be offended" in France. If you don't like it don't go there.

Are you sure...?

http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

I've not see any vote selling things reported on,

Then let me help you in in this very difficult search.

though it's trivial to prove how you voted. Yes, even today, with secret ballots.

You will have to be a lot more specific for your assertion to carry any weight.

New York taxi details can be extracted from anonymised data, researchers say
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

What can you expect from a dictionary publisher that picked "selfie" as the word of the year in 2013 and "vape" for 2014

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

You're assuming they aren't using the same password for their Twitter account that they're using for the Nukes launch codes.

Oh... you think I'm kidding?
Seriously... it's a real concern:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Besides the physical security thing involved with a nuclear missile silo

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

You're assuming they aren't using the same password for their Twitter account that they're using for the Nukes launch codes.

Oh... you think I'm kidding?
Seriously... it's a real concern:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

in Acts 5, the apostles clearly state that "We must obey god rather than men."

But those are not the Lord's words, are they? Not even any of His prophets'... So, it is possible for a Christian to ignore them as a mistaken (or imprecise) opinion of a fallible human.

The take-way by most Christian theologians on this topic is that the bible says you should always honor the laws of man, but you must fear and obey God's word when it conflicts.

That's the thing — it can be (and is) argued both ways. Which theologists constitute a majority? You say, "most" choose God's law, but the overwhelming evidence points the other way — and did for centuries already: there are very few cases, when a Christian criminal claimed to be following his faith in contradiction to the secular law. Islamic clergy and ordinary faithful, on the other hand, are quite anonymous in that the only acceptable political order is Theocracy with Sharia being the law. Today the overwhelming opinion of Muslims is approving of the Paris murders. States and organizations condemned them (whether sincerely or not will never be known), but the ordinary Muslims are rejoicing. Are you going to call them all "uncivilized" — and still avoid accusations of racism?

It is these old testament books that have the aformentioned description of religious law and punishments.

Except Koran — which is the God's word entirely — adds quite a few of its own...

And not just in this regard, BTW. For example, portraying of humans and even animals is forbidden by the two earlier religions too. As is worshiping anything other than the imaginary. But Mohammed, having seen the sort of idolatry Christians succumb to with their icons and "holy relics", has made his laws a lot stricter. Generally, this fact is recognized, viewed as a good thing, and causes no controversy (except when the followers destroy ancient statues on these grounds).

Why can't the same people admit, that Islam is also a lot less forgiving about people criticizing or otherwise "disrespecting" Islam, than Christianity and Judaism are?

http://www.theguardian.com/com...

A camera on every taser and every gun barrel would allow us to "ease into" the monitoring business.

Why do we need to "ease in"? Many police departments are already using bodycams, and they are working well. There is no excuse for any further delay in universal adoption.

Citation: Police body cams cut violence and complaints

Also, the root cause of it all is geopolitics, religion being a good excuse for brainwashing.

Since a majority of biological scientists are women, we just need to spin up the feminist machine and the grant money will flow.

See, with more women in the roles of running labs, women will become the majority of biological scientists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014...

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Well, there's speculation that at least one of the twelve was himself Muslim (based on his name, "Ahmed Merabet"):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-mourned-charlie-hebdo-paris-attack

My point remains: courage is to be found throughout humankind, as is tyranny unfortunately.

Like this guy? http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/...
Or these guys? http://rt.com/uk/184112-britis...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... (and holy shit that's the Saudis)

Or maybe you'd like to say "If only the Muslims would fight ISIS and the fundamentalists!"
I mean, who do you think the YPK is made up of? Or Hezbollah (which, oddly enough is an ally in the fight against ISIS and their ilk)?

The fact is, there are MANY MANY MANY Muslims who are sick of this shit, just like non-Muslims. And they speak out against their backwards, inbred rednecks. The media is loathe to report this side of the story (see the Fergeson protests.. the media only concentrated on the trouble makers, not the hundreds/thousands who protested without managing to rob stores and burn shit down). All it takes is a cursory look around and you realize that money is to be made by sensationalism, and you've been had.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates

The single biggest piece of evidence linking NK to the hack was NK's paranoid reaction to the stupid film in the first place.

Here's what we did not hear from NK:

"Who cares about some silly filmmaker says about us in this b-movie?"

I agree - but quick google shows it is on the treated side and goes straight into the mains from there.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://news.yahoo.com/paris-sh...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...