Burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. If "LED are deadly" then we should see that in health outcomes n countries starting when LED bulbs became popular there. If we don't see that, then you are likely a fool.
The question is: how many thousands of dollars of lawyer fees did he spend? How was his reputation tarnished by the Keystone Kops accusing him with false information?
If the police were to falsely arrest you tomorrow, do you have $5K sitting around to give to a lawyer to help deal with it? (I'm sure you're not stupid enough to try it without a lawyer!) And no other better use for that $5K? Many people on slashdot could find and throw away that money if needed; but most people could not without forgoing little things like food and health care.
And if the case goes to trial, your cost is going way, way up. You avoided jail and lost your house and your job. Does that mean the system is working?
There is no technical requirement. But, since this is not the first case which has accused the wrong person because of skewed camera times, I hope that Wells Fargo loses many millions of dollars in in this case, far more than would cost to just run NTP on each subsystem. Then, there will be a financial requirement, which is the only requirement which the banks care about.
Since the movie has nothing about SJWs or Manspreading in it, then yes, you can enjoy the movie. In fact, taking sides is the best way to not enjoy it. No matter what side you take, you can always find something to complain about.
If they let it be just a movie, and not try to force political agendas in the marketing of this, then there wouldn't be such a big of a controversy. There's plenty of movies with female leads out there which are great. Ignoring that fact just makes Brie Larson look like a bitter moron.
Wait, what? I haven't seen any political agenda with this movie except from the trolls. Trolls blasted the movie on ratings sites, then complained about the controversy they created and the political agenda they are pushing.
Was the first Iron Man, where all of the heroes and villains were male, a "political agenda"? Well, this movie, which has a female lead and males and females on both the "good" and "evil" side, is no more political. So, why do you keep on trying to make it political?
I mean, spoiler alert, but the Big Bad in this movie is portrayed by a female for god's sake. Women can do that too; get over it.
1) The hero is potrayed as constantly having been kicked down and told she's not good enough, exclusively by comically-over-the-top sexist men.
Not sure who told you that, but since that is ludicrously false you should treat all stories from that source with suspicion from now on. Spoilers!
I cannot think of a single scene where she is "kicked down". We see a series of scenes from her past where she failed; sometimes men were there and sometimes not. There is a line like "women could not fly combat missions, so the only way we could contribute was by being experimental test pilots"; if that fits your comment, then you and I will likely never agree on anything.
In fact, the main person "keeping her down" is a female (more would be very spoilery).
2) SPOILER ALERT The one white male in the film who is her ally turns out to be the villain.
Well, if you assume that Agent Coulson isn't a white male, then maybe? But the "white male" is a villain, as are the others on his mixed-gender-and-species team. And (more spoilers) an alien played by a white male turned out to be a good guy.
Not worth refuting these one-by-one. Too many people believe what they want to believe and tune out what doesn't fit their notions.
I saw it today. Yes, it was good. My wife and I both enjoyed it, and that's all I really care about.
If you are the kind of person who sees a powerful female lead and tries to explain your feeling of inadequacy as "I don't hate women, just SJWs", well, you're gonna hate it. But we all expected that. There are interesting and powerful women and men in this movie; some of each are good and some are evil. Kinda like life. There is a theme of "you have your own power; nobody else controls it", which will resonate well with women but also with men.
If you are the kind of person who likes seeing good guys as good and bad guys as bad, with no shades of grey, well, you'll hate it.
But if you want a movie with a young (and very emotive) Nick Fury, a bland-as-always Coulson, many fights and explosions, a good sound track of 90s music, and the usual Marvel wisecracks, then go see it.
A company that wants you to spend lots of money on their video equipment has done a study which proves that you will be better at games if you spend lots of money on their video equipment. Also, you will be stronger, more virile, and better smelling. It's science, so you know it's true.
He also said his mother wasn't stupid. These two positions are in direct conflict with each other.
No, sadly, I know many very intelligent people who intentionally believe stupid things. Some of them know they are intelligent so they believe they cannot be wrong. Others "follow their tribe" and never examine their assumptions. It's less stupidity, it's a lack of humility. It's an inability to think "maybe I'm wrong; I'll look at the evidence and/or listen to the experts who have looked at the evidence."
Or insurances get to charge you more for your stupidity.
This is a good idea. Insurance companies will charge you more if you smoke; they should also charge you more if you don't vaccinate yourself or your family. Let them subsidize my insurance rate.
I've seen many out-of-spec cables work. But also, RS232 is hardly the only serial protocol out there; I've installed RS422 cables to connect equipment on opposite sides of a football stadium, all well within spec.
I do like shenanigans out in the open. It doesn't stop them but at least a few voters will admit the truth when it smacks them in the face,
But I'm a bit confused about your Warren comment. As far as I know, the sequence is: she believed that she had a native american ancestor some generations ago. She put this down on a staff information form. She never got any benefit from this. When she was challenged on it, she took a DNA test and found that she had a native american ancestor some generations ago. What am I missing?
Also, the last middle-of-the-road republican candidate was Obama.
I can see a few reasons for using WSL. Installing and maintaining a whole Linux VM is more effort/support/danger than needed for people who just need a program or two and have little Linux experience.
My bigger question is: "wait, linux files were visible to windows programs, but accessing them could cause corruption? WHY WAS THIS EVER A THING???". This seems like a terrible implementation. I could see it for a "this is really beta, here play with it, but we'll be fixing this terrible feature within a month" product, but that's it. But then, I don't mount a filesystem r/w between multiple VMs because it's a terrible idea and I feel dirty for even considering it.
Separating children from their parents as a punishment for the parent is barbaric.
Agreed, and we should never do this (including at the US southern border). Separating children from their parents as protection for the children, however, is an important tool. It should never be a common or an easy tool, but it must sometimes be done, usually when the parent is actively endangering the kids.
I agree that mandatory vaccination is a better path. While anti-vaxxers are endangering their children, it's not a huge or immediate danger. It's more a danger to everyone.
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Oddly, it really didn't. In the second half of the 20th century, media in the US tried (with partial though not complete success) give accurate information. But there is a reason "yellow journalism" is a term, and there exist many countries where the media was straight up propaganda. The odd historical blip is that we had a "golden age" of mostly accurate information, not what came before or exists now.
You assume such a system will always work like it was originally intended. They rarely do. Bad people figure out ways to exploit existing systems to subvert their original intent. A system for expunging incorrect info gets re-tasked into a system for expunging contrary opinions.
Well sure. And people have exploited fire to be rather more damaging than the original idea of "keeping warm and making tasty meat". People have exploited the stock market to create massive scams. Is this a reason to not have fire and the stock market?
Mind you, teaching critical thinking is the best long term solution even if it is opposed by many people. So until we convince those folks that critical thinking is worth teaching, we'll need to do some other things too.
Part of the issue is that for many people, protecting others is not important. They even have a whole philosophy (objectivism) which has selfishness as its central tenet. (It's amazing how many of these people also claim to revere Jesus Christ who is the complete opposite, but that's a side issue.)
So helping the few (myself) at the cost of the many is a feature, not a bug. It's all about me me me me me!
The difference, as noted above, is that no popular liberal candidates support vagina eggs or anti-vax. But many popular conservative candidates support:
* Anti-vax
* Ain't no global warming 'cause it's snowing now
* Creationism
* Homosexuality is a choice and can be prayed away and many, many more. Look, if you vote for those guys, don't blame me. And don't try to tell me that the folks I vote for are just as bad. It may make you feel better about your terrible life choices, but it just ain't so.
Trump's statements about El Paso and the fencing/wall there are laughably false. Almost every statement about North Korea has been uninformed, untrue, or a prediction which was unlikely at the time (and later shown incorrect). He brags about the record-breaking growth in his economy when the growth was notably better under Obama. And those are all just from last week, are provably false in context, and they are believed by many conservatives.
During Obama's term, a survey showed that more than 50% of conservatives were not certain that Obama was an american citizen. I... don't know what to say about that, except that it implies that you cannot overestimate the gullibility of the modern conservative. I cannot think of anything which was both so easily disproven and was as widely believed by liberals. There are crazy beliefs on both sides, but one side is so clearly off-the-rails compared to the other.
The Gateway Pundit article is misleading. Apple refused to unlock the phone of the shooters, but did turn over their iCloud information after being served a warrant. Same as they did with Stone.
A right-wing information source is giving incorrect information, that anyone could easily disprove but which their readers never verify for themselves? Must be Thursday. Or Tuesday. Or some other day ending in a "Y".
Seriously, folks, when you see a story too crazy to believe, that's probably because it's false. Please don't be so gullible. This goes for you left wing folks too, unless it's something insane that Trump or Steve King supposedly said/tweeted. In that case, well, experience shows it's probably true.
No truly intelligent educated person can refute the overall positive effects of immunization.
That is a very intelligent statement.
Don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of what I just said, either, so don't bother.
And that is not an intelligent statement.
"Intelligence" is not a binary state. People are intelligent about many things and self-deceiving about others. Actually, sometimes about the same things.
I know several anti-vax people who are that way because of their religious beliefs. But they claim that almost all of their beliefs come from their religious beliefs, even the ones which are strongly counter to examples in their Bible. So we're hitting the common divide between what people believe about their motivations, and their actual motivations.
People seem really bad at self-reflection, and really bad at taking responsibility for their beliefs and actions.
The reality is that Pelosi and Schumer did nothing but block everything while the President at least tried to negotiate with them.
The situation was:
* Democrats, Republicans, and the White house negotiated a deal in December where $1.6B was put in the budget to improve border security. This was to cover a bunch of things that would actually make the border more secure, but would not cover a wall. Note also that this was when Republicans controlled the house.
* The senate passed this budget deal with a total of 94-6 or so.
* Some right wing pundits complained that Trump was backing away from his promise.
* Trump reneged on the budget deal and decided he would accept nothing but $5.7B for the wall, no other options, no negotiating.
* Paul Ryan refused to bring the budget deal it to a vote in the House.
* The shutdown started.
Honest question: do you disagree with these facts? If so, what did I get wrong? And if not, how does this involve Pelosi blocking and Trump negotiating?
The best part about the Trump administration is that the overall effect has been to drain the swamp. The Muller Probe guilty pleas, the White House turnover, exposing corruption and collusion which threatens the United States itself - this is all great for our country.
Well, no. All of the corruption being removed now was installed by the Trump administration, so the overall effect is zero. And he's appointing new corrupt folks as quick as we're removing them, and now we don't have time to deal with the pre-existing corruption, so the overall corruption is increasing rapidly.
Huh... I thought the goal was to detect and stop foreign interference in our elections. The fact that you seem to think that "impeach Trump" is the goal probably explains why you cheered for a 4+ year investigation into the Benghazi attack which produced no proof of any wrongdoing, but whine like a president when the Mueller investigation (and offshoots) convict multiple people.
Patriots cheer for the country, partisans cheer for their team. Good to see which you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. If "LED are deadly" then we should see that in health outcomes n countries starting when LED bulbs became popular there. If we don't see that, then you are likely a fool.
The question is: how many thousands of dollars of lawyer fees did he spend? How was his reputation tarnished by the Keystone Kops accusing him with false information?
If the police were to falsely arrest you tomorrow, do you have $5K sitting around to give to a lawyer to help deal with it? (I'm sure you're not stupid enough to try it without a lawyer!) And no other better use for that $5K? Many people on slashdot could find and throw away that money if needed; but most people could not without forgoing little things like food and health care.
And if the case goes to trial, your cost is going way, way up. You avoided jail and lost your house and your job. Does that mean the system is working?
There is no technical requirement. But, since this is not the first case which has accused the wrong person because of skewed camera times, I hope that Wells Fargo loses many millions of dollars in in this case, far more than would cost to just run NTP on each subsystem. Then, there will be a financial requirement, which is the only requirement which the banks care about.
Since the movie has nothing about SJWs or Manspreading in it, then yes, you can enjoy the movie. In fact, taking sides is the best way to not enjoy it. No matter what side you take, you can always find something to complain about.
If they let it be just a movie, and not try to force political agendas in the marketing of this, then there wouldn't be such a big of a controversy. There's plenty of movies with female leads out there which are great. Ignoring that fact just makes Brie Larson look like a bitter moron.
Wait, what? I haven't seen any political agenda with this movie except from the trolls. Trolls blasted the movie on ratings sites, then complained about the controversy they created and the political agenda they are pushing.
Was the first Iron Man, where all of the heroes and villains were male, a "political agenda"? Well, this movie, which has a female lead and males and females on both the "good" and "evil" side, is no more political. So, why do you keep on trying to make it political?
I mean, spoiler alert, but the Big Bad in this movie is portrayed by a female for god's sake. Women can do that too; get over it.
1) The hero is potrayed as constantly having been kicked down and told she's not good enough, exclusively by comically-over-the-top sexist men.
Not sure who told you that, but since that is ludicrously false you should treat all stories from that source with suspicion from now on. Spoilers!
I cannot think of a single scene where she is "kicked down". We see a series of scenes from her past where she failed; sometimes men were there and sometimes not. There is a line like "women could not fly combat missions, so the only way we could contribute was by being experimental test pilots"; if that fits your comment, then you and I will likely never agree on anything.
In fact, the main person "keeping her down" is a female (more would be very spoilery).
2) SPOILER ALERT The one white male in the film who is her ally turns out to be the villain.
Well, if you assume that Agent Coulson isn't a white male, then maybe? But the "white male" is a villain, as are the others on his mixed-gender-and-species team. And (more spoilers) an alien played by a white male turned out to be a good guy.
Not worth refuting these one-by-one. Too many people believe what they want to believe and tune out what doesn't fit their notions.
I saw it today. Yes, it was good. My wife and I both enjoyed it, and that's all I really care about.
If you are the kind of person who sees a powerful female lead and tries to explain your feeling of inadequacy as "I don't hate women, just SJWs", well, you're gonna hate it. But we all expected that. There are interesting and powerful women and men in this movie; some of each are good and some are evil. Kinda like life. There is a theme of "you have your own power; nobody else controls it", which will resonate well with women but also with men.
If you are the kind of person who likes seeing good guys as good and bad guys as bad, with no shades of grey, well, you'll hate it.
But if you want a movie with a young (and very emotive) Nick Fury, a bland-as-always Coulson, many fights and explosions, a good sound track of 90s music, and the usual Marvel wisecracks, then go see it.
A company that wants you to spend lots of money on their video equipment has done a study which proves that you will be better at games if you spend lots of money on their video equipment. Also, you will be stronger, more virile, and better smelling. It's science, so you know it's true.
He also said his mother wasn't stupid. These two positions are in direct conflict with each other.
No, sadly, I know many very intelligent people who intentionally believe stupid things. Some of them know they are intelligent so they believe they cannot be wrong. Others "follow their tribe" and never examine their assumptions. It's less stupidity, it's a lack of humility. It's an inability to think "maybe I'm wrong; I'll look at the evidence and/or listen to the experts who have looked at the evidence."
Or insurances get to charge you more for your stupidity.
This is a good idea. Insurance companies will charge you more if you smoke; they should also charge you more if you don't vaccinate yourself or your family. Let them subsidize my insurance rate.
Or is selective idiocy a pre-existing condition?
I've seen many out-of-spec cables work. But also, RS232 is hardly the only serial protocol out there; I've installed RS422 cables to connect equipment on opposite sides of a football stadium, all well within spec.
I do like shenanigans out in the open. It doesn't stop them but at least a few voters will admit the truth when it smacks them in the face,
But I'm a bit confused about your Warren comment. As far as I know, the sequence is: she believed that she had a native american ancestor some generations ago. She put this down on a staff information form. She never got any benefit from this. When she was challenged on it, she took a DNA test and found that she had a native american ancestor some generations ago. What am I missing?
Also, the last middle-of-the-road republican candidate was Obama.
I can see a few reasons for using WSL. Installing and maintaining a whole Linux VM is more effort/support/danger than needed for people who just need a program or two and have little Linux experience.
My bigger question is: "wait, linux files were visible to windows programs, but accessing them could cause corruption? WHY WAS THIS EVER A THING???". This seems like a terrible implementation. I could see it for a "this is really beta, here play with it, but we'll be fixing this terrible feature within a month" product, but that's it. But then, I don't mount a filesystem r/w between multiple VMs because it's a terrible idea and I feel dirty for even considering it.
Separating children from their parents as a punishment for the parent is barbaric.
Agreed, and we should never do this (including at the US southern border). Separating children from their parents as protection for the children, however, is an important tool. It should never be a common or an easy tool, but it must sometimes be done, usually when the parent is actively endangering the kids.
I agree that mandatory vaccination is a better path. While anti-vaxxers are endangering their children, it's not a huge or immediate danger. It's more a danger to everyone.
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Oddly, it really didn't. In the second half of the 20th century, media in the US tried (with partial though not complete success) give accurate information. But there is a reason "yellow journalism" is a term, and there exist many countries where the media was straight up propaganda. The odd historical blip is that we had a "golden age" of mostly accurate information, not what came before or exists now.
You assume such a system will always work like it was originally intended. They rarely do. Bad people figure out ways to exploit existing systems to subvert their original intent. A system for expunging incorrect info gets re-tasked into a system for expunging contrary opinions.
Well sure. And people have exploited fire to be rather more damaging than the original idea of "keeping warm and making tasty meat". People have exploited the stock market to create massive scams. Is this a reason to not have fire and the stock market?
Mind you, teaching critical thinking is the best long term solution even if it is opposed by many people. So until we convince those folks that critical thinking is worth teaching, we'll need to do some other things too.
Part of the issue is that for many people, protecting others is not important. They even have a whole philosophy (objectivism) which has selfishness as its central tenet. (It's amazing how many of these people also claim to revere Jesus Christ who is the complete opposite, but that's a side issue.)
So helping the few (myself) at the cost of the many is a feature, not a bug. It's all about me me me me me!
The difference, as noted above, is that no popular liberal candidates support vagina eggs or anti-vax. But many popular conservative candidates support:
* Anti-vax
* Ain't no global warming 'cause it's snowing now
* Creationism
* Homosexuality is a choice and can be prayed away
and many, many more. Look, if you vote for those guys, don't blame me. And don't try to tell me that the folks I vote for are just as bad. It may make you feel better about your terrible life choices, but it just ain't so.
You seem really defensive for some reason.
Trump's statements about El Paso and the fencing/wall there are laughably false. Almost every statement about North Korea has been uninformed, untrue, or a prediction which was unlikely at the time (and later shown incorrect). He brags about the record-breaking growth in his economy when the growth was notably better under Obama. And those are all just from last week, are provably false in context, and they are believed by many conservatives.
During Obama's term, a survey showed that more than 50% of conservatives were not certain that Obama was an american citizen. I... don't know what to say about that, except that it implies that you cannot overestimate the gullibility of the modern conservative. I cannot think of anything which was both so easily disproven and was as widely believed by liberals. There are crazy beliefs on both sides, but one side is so clearly off-the-rails compared to the other.
The Gateway Pundit article is misleading. Apple refused to unlock the phone of the shooters, but did turn over their iCloud information after being served a warrant. Same as they did with Stone.
A right-wing information source is giving incorrect information, that anyone could easily disprove but which their readers never verify for themselves? Must be Thursday. Or Tuesday. Or some other day ending in a "Y".
Seriously, folks, when you see a story too crazy to believe, that's probably because it's false. Please don't be so gullible. This goes for you left wing folks too, unless it's something insane that Trump or Steve King supposedly said/tweeted. In that case, well, experience shows it's probably true.
No truly intelligent educated person can refute the overall positive effects of immunization.
That is a very intelligent statement.
Don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of what I just said, either, so don't bother.
And that is not an intelligent statement.
"Intelligence" is not a binary state. People are intelligent about many things and self-deceiving about others. Actually, sometimes about the same things.
I know several anti-vax people who are that way because of their religious beliefs. But they claim that almost all of their beliefs come from their religious beliefs, even the ones which are strongly counter to examples in their Bible. So we're hitting the common divide between what people believe about their motivations, and their actual motivations.
People seem really bad at self-reflection, and really bad at taking responsibility for their beliefs and actions.
The reality is that Pelosi and Schumer did nothing but block everything while the President at least tried to negotiate with them.
The situation was:
* Democrats, Republicans, and the White house negotiated a deal in December where $1.6B was put in the budget to improve border security. This was to cover a bunch of things that would actually make the border more secure, but would not cover a wall. Note also that this was when Republicans controlled the house.
* The senate passed this budget deal with a total of 94-6 or so.
* Some right wing pundits complained that Trump was backing away from his promise.
* Trump reneged on the budget deal and decided he would accept nothing but $5.7B for the wall, no other options, no negotiating.
* Paul Ryan refused to bring the budget deal it to a vote in the House.
* The shutdown started.
Honest question: do you disagree with these facts? If so, what did I get wrong? And if not, how does this involve Pelosi blocking and Trump negotiating?
The best part about the Trump administration is that the overall effect has been to drain the swamp. The Muller Probe guilty pleas, the White House turnover, exposing corruption and collusion which threatens the United States itself - this is all great for our country.
Well, no. All of the corruption being removed now was installed by the Trump administration, so the overall effect is zero. And he's appointing new corrupt folks as quick as we're removing them, and now we don't have time to deal with the pre-existing corruption, so the overall corruption is increasing rapidly.
Huh... I thought the goal was to detect and stop foreign interference in our elections. The fact that you seem to think that "impeach Trump" is the goal probably explains why you cheered for a 4+ year investigation into the Benghazi attack which produced no proof of any wrongdoing, but whine like a president when the Mueller investigation (and offshoots) convict multiple people.
Patriots cheer for the country, partisans cheer for their team. Good to see which you are.