Ah, the old "I'm just saying it, I don't mean it" defense.
Look, I grant zero-tolerance is a stupid policy, and exceptions must be made for sarcasm. But sarcasm should be something you have to demonstrate, not be assumed. Because, frankly, you're erroring on the side of one guy's livelihood, and I'm erroring on the side of public order.
You're correct on the origins (at least Wakefield's; no idea about phrenology.) But surely any current incarnation of either is equally likely to be an idiot or a fraud.
Did he?. I mean, we can look at the outcome and say "yes, he made twice as much money". But I can look at the winner of powerball and say "that person now has a lifetime of whatever they want". Did they make the right choice to buy a ticket? Did the other people who bought a ticket also make "the right choice". I mean, it was the same choice (esp. since most winners auto-pick their numbers now, so pretend that happened in this example).
nobody should face any repercussion for something they say on Facebook... Police look for any and every excuse they can think of to ruin someone's life and livelihood
If a police officer said that the best part of his job was "clubbing uppity N---s" on Facebook, don't you think he should lose his job? I'm not for punishing even idiot racists with jailtime for their beliefs, but certainly certain professions require certain standards.
Because after all, that's what the vaccine compensation court in the USA already has payed out to vaccine victims: billions of dollars.
Which, since the average payout is almost a million dollars, isn't surprising. 4,954 people actually received money over almost two decades. Of those none have been for autism (one was for a disease that has similar symptoms.) In fact, autism claims have been shot down and shot down again on appeal.
The need to compensate those rare individuals who had an adverse reaction is a moral imperative. It would be worth the money any day of the week if we were purchasing herd immunity.
Are you afraid you might not be able to defend your position against them?
Well, I clearly won't be able to defend my position. There's a lot of scientific studies about the near-impossibility of convincing conspiracy theorists (or anyone with strongly held counter-factual beliefs) Pointing out conflicting evidence makes them double down. Beyond using logical fallacies to justify their position, the number of biases humans can employ to avoid thinking is huge.
Look up SV40 polio vaccine from years ago
A mass biological product was contaminated in ways totally independent of its use as a vaccine. I didn't hear anyone calling for banning all guacamole cause some avacados were found with E Coli.
I'm happy to admit that there are occasional problems. But that's not what any anti-vaxxer has claimed. The vaccines of today are massively tested, and the specific issue you brought up was the distribution of an unknown pathogen that evaded all tests. Also, it was still a net positive to wipe out polio.
getting sick of these anti-science whackos like you that think scientific discussion should only be what YOU approve
I'm not saying that. No one is saying that. If experts want to debate the merits of specific vaccines, that's great (assuming there are reasonable people on both sides of the issue). But that's not how anti-vaxxers are spreading disease through my community. They use conspiracy theories about pharama companies profit motives and disingenuous anecdote picking.
In some cases, ala Jenny McCarthy, her son personally almost/did have his life destroyed because her crazy anti-vax faux-autism was a disease that is sometimes treatable if caught early. Instead she doubled down, then said she cured autism as he's somewhat recovered.
convincing people vaccines are good SHOULD be easy
You're right, it should be. And one step for that to happen is for the medical community to treat anti-vaxxers the way they treat phrenologists
With the exception of the background wallpaper, what copyright is involved? The shape of the phone would be subject to a design patent, not copyright. The Samsung name would be subject to a trademark claim, not copyright.
Can you point to the where Hitler said he intends to gas the Jews?
Are you kidding? Sure, easily. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf in the '20s. He said:
If at the beginning of the war and during the war [WWI] twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain
So, better if we had gassed the Jews, and he also said:
the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated
Oh, I see how what I wrote was vague. I meant it would be a reasonable response if it were a rare defect. Even if it could possibly set your house on fire. Obviously, if it did set your house on fire, they should offer more.
As to if I would look away if a toddler had died, that seems crazy. A main reason I said it was reasonable, if it were rare, would be that there's little reason to think that public scrutiny would not help save lives.
My guess is the Note had a sticker price of $900, so it was "refund your money and a new phone." Which, for a rare consumer defect isn't unusual or a bad deal.
he content owners (channels--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BBC(ish*), CBC(ish*), Telemundo, etc.) went to bat for their middlemen by denying content, outrageous pricing, or offering limited content.
What their middlemen? ABC owns Comcast outright. NBC, Fox and couple others jointly own Hulu. Time-Warner, which owns networks and cable stations and studios, sold Time Warner Cable to Charter, and owns a good chunk of that company.
It's crazy vertical integration, and combined with copyright, it's making it very hard to progress in this country.
Right now Google lower-ranks your site for a variety of reasons relating to "but it doesn't work on a phone [crying sound]." While it makes sense to optimize for a phone normally (if trying to reach the largest audience), there are many cases where it actually hurts the site. I wonder if this means that the desktop index will remove those prioritization, allowing some of the old, but gold, content to bubble back up.
Also, I think Google using their monopoly power to decide how "popular" or "relevant" your site is to a search by if it cottons to their favored development styles is a pretty clear anti-trust violation.
Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it?
Hell no. That way lies damnation, PDFs, and embedded images with text on them.
HTML is, first and foremost, about content. CSS is about style, but those are suggestions.
And Youtube has been converting uploaded videos to HTML5 complaint ones for a while now. I suppose they don't have the time to backconvert their whole catalog, although I heard they were slowly doing so..
The GSMA says the tighter laws in the Netherlands will 'hinder development of innovative services and consumer choice'.
Anytime I read that quote, I imagine its because they don't have any real objection other than "this will cost us money." If they said "this will prevent 5G rollout because X" I would think they had a reason.
More like "another 'Soverign Citizen' platform". Corporations live too much in the real world to invest in this idiotic idea. Also, they can already negotiate 0.0% tax rates with various countries.
Just because you can pull an explanation like that out of your ass doesn't mean it's true.
What makes you think I pulled it out of my ass. I got it from the American Economic Review. It's a prestigious publication, peer reviewed. My paraphrase is the accepted explanation, full stop.
In fact, the state's no-fault law combined with the generally shitty state of Philadelphia is more likely responsible than that "cycle".
Which is why Pittsburg was also examined. It had twice as bad incidents of major automotive issues (reported accidents, theft) yet had lower rates. Oh, and if you didn't know, Pittsburg is also in Pennsylvania.
But its not isolated. San Jose is far cheaper than San Fran. Kansas City is far cheaper than St. Louis.
A bias is something preconceived, i.e., something you believe before taking data into account
That's certainly one type of bias. Another could be selection bias, which the data is collected from a non-representative sample. There could be all kinds of bias in collecting or analyzing the data. But here, we're talking about bias resulting from inputs being determined from prior iterations outputs, and those prior outputs having true biased human judgement as an input.
regardless of what the causes of the higher insurance rates are, you are not going to fix them by artificially lowering them.
I'm not sure I offered that solution, but it actually could work. If that caused insurance to be more widely carried, a new equilibrium could be established. Multiple equilibria to a solution are well known.
Or to paraphrase you, "just because you can pull a baseless assertion that feels right out of your ass, doesn't mean it's true."
I tend to think they would. It;s still an attack, and an attack on American democracy. Regardless of whether they did that because its the right thing to do, so Obama could sell more books because of "Russian hacking conflict" or whatever motive, I think they all come up with reacting strongly regardless of the hacked party.
The DNC supposedly got hacked, not the US government. The US government has absolutely no reason to offer *any* response.
If a Russian missile shoots down a Delta flight, I expect the US government to react. If a Russian torpedo sinks a US oil tanker, I expect the US government to react. What kind of strange world do you live in where state level actors only respond to threats by other state level actors if the threats are leveled against the state.
In your mind, could the Russian army invade the US without the US government reacting unless they crossed into federal land?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the old "I'm just saying it, I don't mean it" defense.
Look, I grant zero-tolerance is a stupid policy, and exceptions must be made for sarcasm. But sarcasm should be something you have to demonstrate, not be assumed. Because, frankly, you're erroring on the side of one guy's livelihood, and I'm erroring on the side of public order.
You're correct on the origins (at least Wakefield's; no idea about phrenology.) But surely any current incarnation of either is equally likely to be an idiot or a fraud.
Did he?. I mean, we can look at the outcome and say "yes, he made twice as much money". But I can look at the winner of powerball and say "that person now has a lifetime of whatever they want". Did they make the right choice to buy a ticket? Did the other people who bought a ticket also make "the right choice". I mean, it was the same choice (esp. since most winners auto-pick their numbers now, so pretend that happened in this example).
If a police officer said that the best part of his job was "clubbing uppity N---s" on Facebook, don't you think he should lose his job? I'm not for punishing even idiot racists with jailtime for their beliefs, but certainly certain professions require certain standards.
Which, since the average payout is almost a million dollars, isn't surprising. 4,954 people actually received money over almost two decades. Of those none have been for autism (one was for a disease that has similar symptoms.) In fact, autism claims have been shot down and shot down again on appeal.
The need to compensate those rare individuals who had an adverse reaction is a moral imperative. It would be worth the money any day of the week if we were purchasing herd immunity.
Well, I clearly won't be able to defend my position. There's a lot of scientific studies about the near-impossibility of convincing conspiracy theorists (or anyone with strongly held counter-factual beliefs) Pointing out conflicting evidence makes them double down. Beyond using logical fallacies to justify their position, the number of biases humans can employ to avoid thinking is huge.
A mass biological product was contaminated in ways totally independent of its use as a vaccine. I didn't hear anyone calling for banning all guacamole cause some avacados were found with E Coli.
I'm happy to admit that there are occasional problems. But that's not what any anti-vaxxer has claimed. The vaccines of today are massively tested, and the specific issue you brought up was the distribution of an unknown pathogen that evaded all tests. Also, it was still a net positive to wipe out polio.
I'm not saying that. No one is saying that. If experts want to debate the merits of specific vaccines, that's great (assuming there are reasonable people on both sides of the issue). But that's not how anti-vaxxers are spreading disease through my community. They use conspiracy theories about pharama companies profit motives and disingenuous anecdote picking.
In some cases, ala Jenny McCarthy, her son personally almost/did have his life destroyed because her crazy anti-vax faux-autism was a disease that is sometimes treatable if caught early. Instead she doubled down, then said she cured autism as he's somewhat recovered.
You're right, it should be. And one step for that to happen is for the medical community to treat anti-vaxxers the way they treat phrenologists
Except that it's not. The only products that can get copyright protection seem to be ships of various types.
(Technically, the plans of buildings are subject to copyright, so reproducing a building, requiring plans, often has similar protections)
With the exception of the background wallpaper, what copyright is involved? The shape of the phone would be subject to a design patent, not copyright. The Samsung name would be subject to a trademark claim, not copyright.
Is making false takedown claims actionable yet?
Sure, but he should be able to get Youtube to reinstate it without a court order.
I don't know if he really can, but that's how the SafeHarbor act was written.
20.4 B after taxes, if all of it was pure profit right to Zuckerburg's profit. At least at the time. With today's tax laws, 19.2 B
Are you kidding? Sure, easily. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf in the '20s. He said:
So, better if we had gassed the Jews, and he also said:
Are those passages too subtle?
Oh, I see how what I wrote was vague. I meant it would be a reasonable response if it were a rare defect. Even if it could possibly set your house on fire. Obviously, if it did set your house on fire, they should offer more.
As to if I would look away if a toddler had died, that seems crazy. A main reason I said it was reasonable, if it were rare, would be that there's little reason to think that public scrutiny would not help save lives.
I thought it was more like 1.3 million
My guess is the Note had a sticker price of $900, so it was "refund your money and a new phone." Which, for a rare consumer defect isn't unusual or a bad deal.
Sorry, I stand corrected.
I don't really have good brand awareness of the major networks.
What their middlemen? ABC owns Comcast outright. NBC, Fox and couple others jointly own Hulu. Time-Warner, which owns networks and cable stations and studios, sold Time Warner Cable to Charter, and owns a good chunk of that company.
It's crazy vertical integration, and combined with copyright, it's making it very hard to progress in this country.
Right now Google lower-ranks your site for a variety of reasons relating to "but it doesn't work on a phone [crying sound]." While it makes sense to optimize for a phone normally (if trying to reach the largest audience), there are many cases where it actually hurts the site. I wonder if this means that the desktop index will remove those prioritization, allowing some of the old, but gold, content to bubble back up.
Also, I think Google using their monopoly power to decide how "popular" or "relevant" your site is to a search by if it cottons to their favored development styles is a pretty clear anti-trust violation.
Unlimited resources, no. But more than adequate resources, sure.
Hell no. That way lies damnation, PDFs, and embedded images with text on them.
HTML is, first and foremost, about content. CSS is about style, but those are suggestions.
And Youtube has been converting uploaded videos to HTML5 complaint ones for a while now. I suppose they don't have the time to backconvert their whole catalog, although I heard they were slowly doing so..
Anytime I read that quote, I imagine its because they don't have any real objection other than "this will cost us money." If they said "this will prevent 5G rollout because X" I would think they had a reason.
More like "another 'Soverign Citizen' platform". Corporations live too much in the real world to invest in this idiotic idea. Also, they can already negotiate 0.0% tax rates with various countries.
What makes you think I pulled it out of my ass. I got it from the American Economic Review. It's a prestigious publication, peer reviewed. My paraphrase is the accepted explanation, full stop.
Which is why Pittsburg was also examined. It had twice as bad incidents of major automotive issues (reported accidents, theft) yet had lower rates. Oh, and if you didn't know, Pittsburg is also in Pennsylvania.
But its not isolated. San Jose is far cheaper than San Fran. Kansas City is far cheaper than St. Louis.
That's certainly one type of bias. Another could be selection bias, which the data is collected from a non-representative sample. There could be all kinds of bias in collecting or analyzing the data. But here, we're talking about bias resulting from inputs being determined from prior iterations outputs, and those prior outputs having true biased human judgement as an input.
I'm not sure I offered that solution, but it actually could work. If that caused insurance to be more widely carried, a new equilibrium could be established. Multiple equilibria to a solution are well known.
Or to paraphrase you, "just because you can pull a baseless assertion that feels right out of your ass, doesn't mean it's true."
I tend to think they would. It;s still an attack, and an attack on American democracy. Regardless of whether they did that because its the right thing to do, so Obama could sell more books because of "Russian hacking conflict" or whatever motive, I think they all come up with reacting strongly regardless of the hacked party.
Yet try to find the documentation of any new SDK and it's "watch the videos on Youtube.
If a Russian missile shoots down a Delta flight, I expect the US government to react. If a Russian torpedo sinks a US oil tanker, I expect the US government to react. What kind of strange world do you live in where state level actors only respond to threats by other state level actors if the threats are leveled against the state.
In your mind, could the Russian army invade the US without the US government reacting unless they crossed into federal land?