A depressing but unsurprising litany of dull technical books, bad science fiction, and Any Rand. Don't read books with code in them, or books about coding, that's what the internet is for.
Read fiction, because it's good for you. Read things that seem a bit unlikely to entertain at first. Read The Inferno, Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Nineteen Eighty Four, Animal Farm, Wise Children, Ridley Walker. The only halfway technical book I ever enjoyed was Chaos by James Gleik, and that was when I was thirteen. Read proper books. Life's too short to spend any of it reading about code. Believe me.
You know, abortion has very little to do with the woman's body. She's just the gateway. She's not actually doing anything to her body. It's the body of another she's after.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest both that you are a man, and don't know anyone who's had a baby other than your mother.
Just the gateway? I mean, I've read the normal anti-abortion life-begins-at-conception nonsense, but this is a new one for me. Having a baby is a physically life-changing event for a woman's body, and neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to tell that woman what to do with her own body. That we are still having this conversation in a supposedly civilised and free country is 2016 is terrifying. If America succeeds in banning abortion, the consequences will be measured in human misery, needlessly lost lives, and suffering. I hope you people are proud.
This is precisely the right attitude - although why anyone would eat at mcdonalds even while they still do employ humans to manufacture their borderline inedible garbage is quite beyond me.
I understand that it is increasingly hard to actually find reasonable food in American suburbs - it's not too bad if you can be bothered to drive downtown, but that's normally quite a long way. This is the real problem. The very fact that much of the food produced by restaurants in the states can even be manufactured by machines demonstrates just how dreadful most of it is.
This is completely untrue. Given a strong desire to eat unhealthy food, do you really believe that constantly fighting against that desire requires no effort? Does it also require no effort to forego other pleasures in your life? There are books on this subject.
Of course you will. But then, when you move back to a country that surrounds you constantly will fatty and sugary foods, that weight will pile right back on. Which simply demonstrates that the true cause of obesity is not individual moral failings, but the food that we are surrounded by. It's so unbelievably clear, that I find it astonishing that anyone could believe otherwise. The evidence is literally all around us.
This is clearly true, and almost completely irrelevant. As should be clear from the post by friesofdoom, some people simply want to eat more. They need to eat more before they feel similarly full to another person who may have eaten less. This means that those people, in order to remain thin, must fight a constant never-ending battle against themselves, that no human being can ever be expected to win. Of course if you eat more, you get fat, and if you eat less, you get thin. But imagine you were in a situation where if you didn't eat more than your body technically required, you felt hungry. Now imagine being hungry every day, for the rest of your life. Imagine that hunger, present, all the time. Imagine that if you gave in to that hunger, you would gain weight. Now imagine trying to remain thin in that situation. Perhaps if you were in that situation, you would not be so glib about 'thermodynamics'. And, of course, I am not the only person who understands this
Do you remember what LCDs used to look like? They were pretty terrible. Narrow viewing angles, low contrast, high latency. Give this technology a few years (ok, decades?), and the basic principal has the potential to completely replace display technology as we know it. The only reason that I continue to use my ancient Nokia phone, is that I don't have to turn on the backlight to see the display, I can just pull it out of my pocket and see the screen without pushing any buttons. E-ink displays could increase cellphone battery life by an order of magnitude, simply by not requiring any backlight power when using the phone in daylight.
Haha. And here's silly old me, writing real, functional code (I assume we're talking about code that functions, not functional languages, but anyhow) in C++. I must just simply be wrong. All that pesky compile-time checking causing me to write fewer bugs and deal with fewer run-time exceptions.
Although, to be fair, I am comparing it with Java and Python here.
Yes, it's loosely typed. But try passing an actual function as a parameter in a strongly typed language. Or get a function back as a return value. Better yet, get back a runtime specialized function as a return value.
Yeah. I think most strongly typed languages can do that perfectly fine. C++11, for instance, does it pretty well.
Do you have the same advice for people in countries where, for example, permitting your daughter to drive a car would be a criminal offence? How about ones where writing critically about ones government on social media would land you in jail? How about places where you can't grow certain plants in your back garden for you own use without being chained up behind bars for it? Oh no, wait, we already have your position on that last one. It's probably safe to assume you have the same position on the others. Good for you.
A balanced view might break try this breakdown first:
47.7% - Violent
52.3% - Non violent
And then, it might try to break down both of the two categories further. Violent, for instance, consists of stuff like murder, assault, violent burglaries, home invasions, sexual assault, domestic violence, violence against minors. Etcetera etcetera. Whereas non-violent might have a different breakdown. But to leave violent offences in a category of their own, and then on that basis, suggest they they are the 'largest' category, is straight up dishonest.
I am often moved, as the children roll their eyes, and as I reach into the freezer for ice cubes, to mention that humankind's greatest achievement is this machine in front of me. I can get ice in my gin and tonic whenever I want, and if civilisation is signified by anything, it's by that.
Slashdot Mirror
A depressing but unsurprising litany of dull technical books, bad science fiction, and Any Rand. Don't read books with code in them, or books about coding, that's what the internet is for.
Read fiction, because it's good for you. Read things that seem a bit unlikely to entertain at first. Read The Inferno, Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Nineteen Eighty Four, Animal Farm, Wise Children, Ridley Walker. The only halfway technical book I ever enjoyed was Chaos by James Gleik, and that was when I was thirteen. Read proper books. Life's too short to spend any of it reading about code. Believe me.
USA is supposed to be a closed place since 1927.
What on earth does that mean?
Maybe because I reset cookies each time I visit slashdot.
No, it won't be that. Slashdot implement that feature using telepathic visitor tracking.
but objectively this is no more creepy or unethical than anything else in the advertising industry.
So, in other words, spectacularly creepy and deeply unethical then?
You know, abortion has very little to do with the woman's body. She's just the gateway. She's not actually doing anything to her body. It's the body of another she's after.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and suggest both that you are a man, and don't know anyone who's had a baby other than your mother.
Just the gateway? I mean, I've read the normal anti-abortion life-begins-at-conception nonsense, but this is a new one for me. Having a baby is a physically life-changing event for a woman's body, and neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to tell that woman what to do with her own body. That we are still having this conversation in a supposedly civilised and free country is 2016 is terrifying. If America succeeds in banning abortion, the consequences will be measured in human misery, needlessly lost lives, and suffering. I hope you people are proud.
Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms.
From the "not even wrong" department...
This is precisely the right attitude - although why anyone would eat at mcdonalds even while they still do employ humans to manufacture their borderline inedible garbage is quite beyond me.
I understand that it is increasingly hard to actually find reasonable food in American suburbs - it's not too bad if you can be bothered to drive downtown, but that's normally quite a long way. This is the real problem. The very fact that much of the food produced by restaurants in the states can even be manufactured by machines demonstrates just how dreadful most of it is.
It's hard to imagine a more user-unfriendly policy.
Yes. Obviously. But we do not live in a society that surrounds us with easy access to those foods. Quite the opposite in fact.
It literally requires no effort.
This is completely untrue. Given a strong desire to eat unhealthy food, do you really believe that constantly fighting against that desire requires no effort? Does it also require no effort to forego other pleasures in your life? There are books on this subject.
Of course you will. But then, when you move back to a country that surrounds you constantly will fatty and sugary foods, that weight will pile right back on. Which simply demonstrates that the true cause of obesity is not individual moral failings, but the food that we are surrounded by. It's so unbelievably clear, that I find it astonishing that anyone could believe otherwise. The evidence is literally all around us.
am very obese and I feel bad about it.
Great. Is that 'feeling bad' actually helping? Or are you just basically feeling bad? Honest question.
Calories in - calories spent = weight gained/lost
This is clearly true, and almost completely irrelevant. As should be clear from the post by friesofdoom, some people simply want to eat more. They need to eat more before they feel similarly full to another person who may have eaten less. This means that those people, in order to remain thin, must fight a constant never-ending battle against themselves, that no human being can ever be expected to win. Of course if you eat more, you get fat, and if you eat less, you get thin. But imagine you were in a situation where if you didn't eat more than your body technically required, you felt hungry. Now imagine being hungry every day, for the rest of your life. Imagine that hunger, present, all the time. Imagine that if you gave in to that hunger, you would gain weight. Now imagine trying to remain thin in that situation. Perhaps if you were in that situation, you would not be so glib about 'thermodynamics'. And, of course, I am not the only person who understands this
Do you remember what LCDs used to look like? They were pretty terrible. Narrow viewing angles, low contrast, high latency. Give this technology a few years (ok, decades?), and the basic principal has the potential to completely replace display technology as we know it. The only reason that I continue to use my ancient Nokia phone, is that I don't have to turn on the backlight to see the display, I can just pull it out of my pocket and see the screen without pushing any buttons. E-ink displays could increase cellphone battery life by an order of magnitude, simply by not requiring any backlight power when using the phone in daylight.
Ha. Fair enough. Agreed.
Haha. And here's silly old me, writing real, functional code (I assume we're talking about code that functions, not functional languages, but anyhow) in C++. I must just simply be wrong. All that pesky compile-time checking causing me to write fewer bugs and deal with fewer run-time exceptions.
Although, to be fair, I am comparing it with Java and Python here.
Yes, it's loosely typed. But try passing an actual function as a parameter in a strongly typed language. Or get a function back as a return value. Better yet, get back a runtime specialized function as a return value.
Yeah. I think most strongly typed languages can do that perfectly fine. C++11, for instance, does it pretty well.
Ah slashdot, the home of art criticism...
Nah mate, they were remote control. You're thinking of Robot Jox.
putting only 2.8% of the adult population
Forgive me, but almost three percent seems incredibly high. Three out of every hundred people actually going to jail?
Then you have nothing to compare USA prisons
Apart from all the other countries in the world, that is.
You go to prison *as* punishment and not *for* punishment.
This is by far the most insightful comment in this entire thread.
Do you have the same advice for people in countries where, for example, permitting your daughter to drive a car would be a criminal offence? How about ones where writing critically about ones government on social media would land you in jail? How about places where you can't grow certain plants in your back garden for you own use without being chained up behind bars for it? Oh no, wait, we already have your position on that last one. It's probably safe to assume you have the same position on the others. Good for you.
when you combine all other categories into one
A balanced view might break try this breakdown first:
47.7% - Violent
52.3% - Non violent
And then, it might try to break down both of the two categories further. Violent, for instance, consists of stuff like murder, assault, violent burglaries, home invasions, sexual assault, domestic violence, violence against minors. Etcetera etcetera. Whereas non-violent might have a different breakdown. But to leave violent offences in a category of their own, and then on that basis, suggest they they are the 'largest' category, is straight up dishonest.
I am often moved, as the children roll their eyes, and as I reach into the freezer for ice cubes, to mention that humankind's greatest achievement is this machine in front of me. I can get ice in my gin and tonic whenever I want, and if civilisation is signified by anything, it's by that.
Cheers.