kebes already pretty much said it, and as I said (under a different name) on Digg,
Saying "100 million times stronger than MRI" is a deceptive way to describe this. The normal usage of MRI that the public is familiar with is to scan your body, or parts of your body. This new technology would work on a "sample," for instance a biopsy. If the new technology operated at the same scale - your whole body - and was at 100 million times finer resolution - then that would be astounding.
But this is a competitor for other microscopes - not MRI.
Yeah, you're using Zero-Sum thinking, and it's false.
If 20 million Americans have poor eyesight, and it turns out that 80% of them are African-American - it makes sense to have programs that hand out recycled glasses in predominantly African-American areas. Doing so does not hurt anyone else.
Yes, if you see yourself as being IN COMPETITION with black people, or poor people, or men, or whatever else, then celebrating the victory of President-Elect Obama on the basis of, well, cripes - ANYTHING - makes you feel bad.
But you're foolish to see it that way. If 1% more of African-Americans stay in school this year, it's a huge victory for them, for me, for you, for America. To see it as anything else is really selfish, and immature, and insulting to the idea that we're all in this together, and that we should all wish for each other what we wish for ourselves (ie, Golden Rule, etc.)
I didn't say anything about making a law. And we didn't just make a law - we elected a new President. You are conflating every issue you can think of.
If you want to have a conversation, that's fine - but lay out your arguments, and defend them when they are criticized.
It is NOT an affront to skinny kids to be "pro fat kid." (This is an analogy with your statement that "Being pro race is also Racist.")
Chanting "Let Rudy Play" doesn't diminish the lives of all of the big, tall, muscular players on the football team. Cheering for Rudy doesn't mean you're booing for everyone else. Cheering at the Special Olympics doesn't mean you think Michael Phelps is a jerk. Applauding the accomplishment of our next President, that of being the first African-American president, and hoping that African-Americans are inspired to believe in their dreams, do more, hope more, accomplish more, is NOT booing all of the previous white Presidents, or his white opponents in the race for President. Hell, I hope kids from ILLINOIS are inspired. I hope AMERICANS are inspired. I hope all minorities are inspired. I hope everyone with a single parent is inspired. I hope everyone with an immigrant or non-American parent is inspired. I hope everyone who sees a part of Obama in them self, or sees a part of them self in Obama is inspired.
Hoping people are inspired to do better for themselves is a good thing. Don't call it racism because we happen to be talking about a racial group being inspired. They have every right to be proud of their own. Just as people have the right to be proud of their sports team. Just as Americans have the right to be proud of their soldiers. Just as a neighborhood has a right to be proud of the students in their community.
So, sure, when I talk about laws, feel free to criticize, because there's legitimate debate about their effectiveness. But that's not what we're talking about today.
We are talking about the historic election of an African-American as President of the United States. And if African-Americans are motivated by it, then thank God.
So please, shut up about it, because your "anti-racism" is driving you to conflate EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF RACE RELATIONS, on a day when there's only one thing the rest of us are talking about - the election of a President, and how we hope that inspires people who identify with him. Not at the expense of anyone else, but to the benefit of all of us.
When did I mention a single scapegoat? When did I mention blame? When did I mention hate? I didn't. You've got a whole lot of vitriol in your post.
Your very quote states that, to paraphrase, "those people need motivation." Is that not a racist statement?
If people identify themselves as belonging to a group - any kind of group - that it turns out are under-performing in an important area, then I don't think anyone should have any problem with saying "they need motivation", or asking "geez - what's going on?"
The discrimination, or racism, or sexism, comes in from PRESUMING that an individual person - or the group as a whole - is incapable of improving, is inherently flawed, is under-performing because they're bad, or wrong, or deserve it.
If you show me a group that's under-performing on educational achievement, then I want to address it. All groups. Any groups. And if there's enough funding for it, the size of groups that we pay attention to will get smaller and smaller and smaller until there's only one person in the group, and we've got the funding to do what we can to improve the educational achievements of that one child.
Intentionally IGNORING the groups that people self-identify as being members of, even when there's a measurable statistical difference in how they're performing - is a ridiculous extreme of "anti-racist racism."
How do you ADDRESS the problems of those groups? Ah, now that's a different discussion. Do you pay more attention to that group? Give them more funding? I agree that that can have unintended consequences - even exacerbating the problem. But I was initially saying that I *HOPE* that the achievements of a symbolic leader has a motivational impact on the group, so your labeling of that as racist is absurd.
If I pick a measure that I care about - like educational achievement - and I see that there's a gap in how different people who identify themselves as belonging to ANY group are performing, then I pay attention to it. I advocate on behalf of that group. I listen to their and other's ideas about how to close the gap. I'm even willing to vote for increased taxes to pay for social programs that hope to have an impact on their performance. I get excited when I think there's progress, and I herald it when a symbolic leader of that group focuses attention on the same issue that I care about.
I don't care if that group calls themselves African-American, gay, female, child of a single parent, latch-key, short, overweight, or from Alabama, or whatever.
Should I focus on one group to the exclusion of all others? Of course not.
There's an argument to be made that we all should vote to make the government infinitely attentive to the educational needs of each individual child - regardless of any groups that child identifies with. And I think that's a fine *ideal*. But in practical terms, I think you'll agree that it's *cheaper* to look for generalizations - ANY generalizations - and to work within those confines as long as it's productive. So, if you want lower taxes, accept some generalizations. If you want to stamp out the shortcut of people looking at generalizations to do the best they can to help as many people as they can, then advocate your ass off for better funding. Until that day, either accept low performance, or accept targeted programs to address it.
If girls are behind in science, then focus on that. If overweight kids aren't doing their homework, then focus on that. If African-Americans are behind on reading skills, then focus on that. If kids from Alabama are having a hard time getting to school, then focus on that.
It's not racist, or sexist, or *-ist to look at how someone self-identifies, and see if they fall in a group that has, in a generic sense, different needs.
How you then REACT to those different needs can indeed be racist, or sexist, or whatever.
But all I initially said was "advocating," "heralding," and "hoping" and then you went off on an angry rant, along with a bunch of other people.
Advocating on behalf of a group that has lower than average educational achievement, lifetime salaries, and for that matter life expectancy, is not racism.
Heralding the achievements of a symbolic leader of that group, and hoping that it has a motivational impact on the rest of the group, is also not racist.
There's this internet thing. And some companies have computers hooked up to it that you can rent. Amazon allows you to rent them at about $0.125 an hour.
AS MANY AS YOU WANT*. So, if you've got a lot of processing you need to do, but don't want to have to buy a bunch of computers, there ya go.
I read an interesting article about how it's impossible to write a max (as in, which of these two values is the maximum) function in C++ that simultaneously satisfies a list of seemingly reasonable requirements. Hell if I can find the dang thing, but it was a good article.
My point is that we write programs to express the way to solve problems, and for even the simplest of problems, there's a lot of debate about the best way to do it.
So, what are the attributes of the best software? It's good enough, it's readable enough, and it's easy enough to modify. (Also, it's fast enough, but too many people worry too much about that one.)
Have you read the book "Daemon" by Leinad Zeraus? Or how about "The Footprints of God" by Greg Iles? Do you think The Singularity is approaching, and if so, do you think you're prepared for it?
Considering that there were, to my knowledge, no game mechanics for anything like it in previous editions, and now there are classes in the core rulebook which heavily rely on the mechanism to control the flow of combat, I'd definitely agree with the point that it's "like aggro." Not that I think it's a bad thing. I had a bit of a hard time explaining it to my players, when I ran "Raiders of Oakhurst" - the first 4E session we had. And honestly, when I explained it, what I said sounded similar to Aggro...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want to explain to me why it's "obviously" temporary?
Dr. Manhattan both cared about humanity at the end of the film, and agreed with the solution.
Who says he ever has to die, either?
He can keep an eye on humanity, and every now and then blow up a city, to keep us united in hating and fearing him.
From Office Space: Why should I change my name?! He's the one that sucks!
But seriously...
Add a middle initial: "J."
Rocket J. Squirrel
Bullwinkle J. Moose
Michael J. Fox
Homer J. Simpson
Yeah, something's not right here. I came to the same conclusion.
Did someone tell the author that they had that much L1 memory, and they didn't understand the difference?
No, it can process over 3 tax returns per day.
If you don't provide additional services compared to the free alternative, it's a pretty obnoxious thing to do. *shrug*
If they pulled it off for a live human, it would be a radical change.
As it is, it's in a totally different field of medicine than I typically care about.
As kebes said, this device won't work on the scale of the MRI that you're familiar with. It works on extremely small samples - biopsies, etc.
kebes already pretty much said it, and as I said (under a different name) on Digg,
Saying "100 million times stronger than MRI" is a deceptive way to describe this. The normal usage of MRI that the public is familiar with is to scan your body, or parts of your body. This new technology would work on a "sample," for instance a biopsy. If the new technology operated at the same scale - your whole body - and was at 100 million times finer resolution - then that would be astounding.
But this is a competitor for other microscopes - not MRI.
I answered 25 out of 33 correctly; 75.76 %
Damnit! I'll never be an elected official!
Seems like they locked it down, at least the multi-user aspect. Or can other people get in to it?
So, we're having a Slashdot discussion there. Full of "your mom" jokes and other mindless crap. And all of a sudden - BAM!
We're hit by an ASCII goatsex.
Ah, thank you internet for inventing another way to make me want to gouge my eyes out.
EtherPad is dead to me, as of 11:52 AM, CST. lolz.
Slashdot Etherpad.
Yeah, you're using Zero-Sum thinking, and it's false.
If 20 million Americans have poor eyesight, and it turns out that 80% of them are African-American - it makes sense to have programs that hand out recycled glasses in predominantly African-American areas. Doing so does not hurt anyone else.
Yes, if you see yourself as being IN COMPETITION with black people, or poor people, or men, or whatever else, then celebrating the victory of President-Elect Obama on the basis of, well, cripes - ANYTHING - makes you feel bad.
But you're foolish to see it that way. If 1% more of African-Americans stay in school this year, it's a huge victory for them, for me, for you, for America. To see it as anything else is really selfish, and immature, and insulting to the idea that we're all in this together, and that we should all wish for each other what we wish for ourselves (ie, Golden Rule, etc.)
I didn't say anything about making a law. And we didn't just make a law - we elected a new President. You are conflating every issue you can think of.
If you want to have a conversation, that's fine - but lay out your arguments, and defend them when they are criticized.
It is NOT an affront to skinny kids to be "pro fat kid." (This is an analogy with your statement that "Being pro race is also Racist.")
Chanting "Let Rudy Play" doesn't diminish the lives of all of the big, tall, muscular players on the football team. Cheering for Rudy doesn't mean you're booing for everyone else. Cheering at the Special Olympics doesn't mean you think Michael Phelps is a jerk. Applauding the accomplishment of our next President, that of being the first African-American president, and hoping that African-Americans are inspired to believe in their dreams, do more, hope more, accomplish more, is NOT booing all of the previous white Presidents, or his white opponents in the race for President. Hell, I hope kids from ILLINOIS are inspired. I hope AMERICANS are inspired. I hope all minorities are inspired. I hope everyone with a single parent is inspired. I hope everyone with an immigrant or non-American parent is inspired. I hope everyone who sees a part of Obama in them self, or sees a part of them self in Obama is inspired.
Hoping people are inspired to do better for themselves is a good thing. Don't call it racism because we happen to be talking about a racial group being inspired. They have every right to be proud of their own. Just as people have the right to be proud of their sports team. Just as Americans have the right to be proud of their soldiers. Just as a neighborhood has a right to be proud of the students in their community.
So, sure, when I talk about laws, feel free to criticize, because there's legitimate debate about their effectiveness. But that's not what we're talking about today.
We are talking about the historic election of an African-American as President of the United States. And if African-Americans are motivated by it, then thank God.
So please, shut up about it, because your "anti-racism" is driving you to conflate EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF RACE RELATIONS, on a day when there's only one thing the rest of us are talking about - the election of a President, and how we hope that inspires people who identify with him. Not at the expense of anyone else, but to the benefit of all of us.
When did I mention a single scapegoat? When did I mention blame? When did I mention hate? I didn't. You've got a whole lot of vitriol in your post.
Your very quote states that, to paraphrase, "those people need motivation." Is that not a racist statement?
If people identify themselves as belonging to a group - any kind of group - that it turns out are under-performing in an important area, then I don't think anyone should have any problem with saying "they need motivation", or asking "geez - what's going on?"
The discrimination, or racism, or sexism, comes in from PRESUMING that an individual person - or the group as a whole - is incapable of improving, is inherently flawed, is under-performing because they're bad, or wrong, or deserve it.
If you show me a group that's under-performing on educational achievement, then I want to address it. All groups. Any groups. And if there's enough funding for it, the size of groups that we pay attention to will get smaller and smaller and smaller until there's only one person in the group, and we've got the funding to do what we can to improve the educational achievements of that one child.
Intentionally IGNORING the groups that people self-identify as being members of, even when there's a measurable statistical difference in how they're performing - is a ridiculous extreme of "anti-racist racism."
How do you ADDRESS the problems of those groups? Ah, now that's a different discussion. Do you pay more attention to that group? Give them more funding? I agree that that can have unintended consequences - even exacerbating the problem. But I was initially saying that I *HOPE* that the achievements of a symbolic leader has a motivational impact on the group, so your labeling of that as racist is absurd.
Wow - you've got a lot of hate going on there.
If I pick a measure that I care about - like educational achievement - and I see that there's a gap in how different people who identify themselves as belonging to ANY group are performing, then I pay attention to it. I advocate on behalf of that group. I listen to their and other's ideas about how to close the gap. I'm even willing to vote for increased taxes to pay for social programs that hope to have an impact on their performance. I get excited when I think there's progress, and I herald it when a symbolic leader of that group focuses attention on the same issue that I care about.
I don't care if that group calls themselves African-American, gay, female, child of a single parent, latch-key, short, overweight, or from Alabama, or whatever.
Should I focus on one group to the exclusion of all others? Of course not.
There's an argument to be made that we all should vote to make the government infinitely attentive to the educational needs of each individual child - regardless of any groups that child identifies with. And I think that's a fine *ideal*. But in practical terms, I think you'll agree that it's *cheaper* to look for generalizations - ANY generalizations - and to work within those confines as long as it's productive. So, if you want lower taxes, accept some generalizations. If you want to stamp out the shortcut of people looking at generalizations to do the best they can to help as many people as they can, then advocate your ass off for better funding. Until that day, either accept low performance, or accept targeted programs to address it.
If girls are behind in science, then focus on that. If overweight kids aren't doing their homework, then focus on that. If African-Americans are behind on reading skills, then focus on that. If kids from Alabama are having a hard time getting to school, then focus on that.
It's not racist, or sexist, or *-ist to look at how someone self-identifies, and see if they fall in a group that has, in a generic sense, different needs.
How you then REACT to those different needs can indeed be racist, or sexist, or whatever.
But all I initially said was "advocating," "heralding," and "hoping" and then you went off on an angry rant, along with a bunch of other people.
Advocating on behalf of a group that has lower than average educational achievement, lifetime salaries, and for that matter life expectancy, is not racism.
Heralding the achievements of a symbolic leader of that group, and hoping that it has a motivational impact on the rest of the group, is also not racist.
There's this internet thing. And some companies have computers hooked up to it that you can rent. Amazon allows you to rent them at about $0.125 an hour.
AS MANY AS YOU WANT*. So, if you've got a lot of processing you need to do, but don't want to have to buy a bunch of computers, there ya go.
* Kind of.
Not to start a holy war, but I always thought MOOs were cooler.
Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
to To other side. get the
I read an interesting article about how it's impossible to write a max (as in, which of these two values is the maximum) function in C++ that simultaneously satisfies a list of seemingly reasonable requirements. Hell if I can find the dang thing, but it was a good article.
My point is that we write programs to express the way to solve problems, and for even the simplest of problems, there's a lot of debate about the best way to do it.
So, what are the attributes of the best software? It's good enough, it's readable enough, and it's easy enough to modify. (Also, it's fast enough, but too many people worry too much about that one.)
Have you read the book "Daemon" by Leinad Zeraus? Or how about "The Footprints of God" by Greg Iles?
Do you think The Singularity is approaching, and if so, do you think you're prepared for it?
Q) Why did the multithreaded chicken cross the road?
A) to To other the side. get the
Considering that there were, to my knowledge, no game mechanics for anything like it in previous editions, and now there are classes in the core rulebook which heavily rely on the mechanism to control the flow of combat, I'd definitely agree with the point that it's "like aggro."
Not that I think it's a bad thing. I had a bit of a hard time explaining it to my players, when I ran "Raiders of Oakhurst" - the first 4E session we had. And honestly, when I explained it, what I said sounded similar to Aggro...
Uh, "marking" someone is pretty close to making them aggro onto you.