3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates.
That's interesting because it suggests it's non-tech-wages being held down. It would still be blatantly illegal I think, but it undermines much of the rhetoric about this issue. Doesn't completely destroy it -- some agreements might have that for engineering candidates.
The real question is, does it make a difference to the thief if the punishment is 10 years or 20 years? I am skeptical that people will take the risk for 10 years that wouldn't take it for 20 years.
and the prevention crime through the deterrence of punishment for those who cannot.
I would say the prevention of crime is the goal, and end it there. "Deterrence of punishment" is a potential means, and maybe you can argue it's the best one, but it has no place in a statement of goals, since it begs the question. Rehabilitation is actually just another method for preventing crime, and I would say it's not really the main goal of any place's system, though it's interesting to think about what it means to promote it to the status of goal.
Wikipedia has a pretty good run-down of the methods for preventing crime:
It calls them "reasons for punishment", but rehabilitation doesn't seem like a "reason for punishment" since rehabilitation is, theoretically, to the benefit of all, criminal included. I would argue that all of these are, however, methods of preventing crime. Even retribution, interestingly because the intent is to prevent crimes committed by people who were innocent of previous crimes, eg. vigilantism. Although I still think retribution is disgusting and I question its effectiveness at reducing crime, I acknowledge it exists as a potential method to reduce crime.
I am extremely skeptical of the hypothesis that people who get flu shots have a significantly different intelligence profile than the total population. You're basing too strong a conclusion on little contextual data.
I'm from Canada (so in North America) and while I've heard this construction before, I do find it awkward and "rustic" and have to think about what anymore is supposed to mean. It holds similar associations to me as "ain't", which is a word I never use outside of quotations, but understand perfectly well and has become semi-standard in some dialects. Likewise, I would never spontaneously speak a sentence that used "anymore" in that manner. A similar informal word that I would use in those situations is "nowadays".
The usage discussion at merriam-webster suggests that the positive statement usage is a phenomenon through most of the US, and mostly within the US: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Like it says, I tend to reserve anymore for negative constructions or questions. I can't assign a good reason for why I do it like that, but it's the case.
The problems with mining Titan for gas is not a shortage of methane on earth. Thus your argument is specious.
There's very good reason that mining methane from Titan is prohibitively difficult in the foreseeable future, but there's no good reason to think it's an assured net loss, for all time, for every resource. It would be a trade of some resources for others.
It would definitely have to be a robotic operation, no question. Once you say that, the low temperature isn't such a big deal (we could in principle build something for which the Earth is an incredibly hostile hot environment), especially since with a fuel source (like, say, methane) it's relatively easy to heat a local environment, compared to trying to cool it out a hot planet. Thus the Antarctica comparison is very far from being the biggest problem.
Your grandchildren will know how to shoe a horse, not fly a starship to Pluto, do you also understand that?
I find it really oddly specific that you think there will be such a catastrophe that we'll be back to wanting to ride horses, but not such a catastrophe that shoeing horses remains uncommon. I almost wonder if you're the one who is messed up by the movies.
You seem fixated on the *wrong problems* and I think that undermines your argument. That and your strawman about "Space Nutters" (which sounds like a sci fi porn title).
Have each connection prefaced by a communications protocol version. Refuse connection to anything not running the correct protocol version.
Doing this is tantamount to breaking the software, and as such, it should no longer be available in the store. This is presumably the mechanism for pulling things out of the store when you pull out the corresponding server-side functionality.
Make a simple and explicit notice that if the user refuses auto-updates, the user is subsequently on their own, and it's up to them to keep track of future security updates and make sure there hasn't been a compromising bug discovered.
A cancel or allow dialog? When did those become popular again?
I've been frustrated with updates that seem like downgrades too. I still really hate Apple Maps (lack of integrated transit directions alone is a dealbreaker).
Seems to me that a default-allow, but developer disallowable option on the store is the best option. As noted, the developer can do that anyway, it's just that if they implement it themselves it's worse for everybody.
You absolutely see Microsoft advocating permanent residence for H1B holders, which in economic terms is basically the same thing as citizenship and is in any case a necessary step.
I actually did have that, and they put me way ahead in math compared to the rest of my courses (Canada). Got to the point where I deliberately slowed my math education in high school so I'd still have some math left to take in my final year before University -- wouldn't want to get rusty, but it was a rural school system so there were only so many math courses to take.
A problem is transitioning. This can maybe work if you fail kids at the level of individual classes. But to skip ahead you either have to do it very early (as in my case), or you have to help the kid transition and catch up with content he missed (if you start in grade 3 everything and end in grade 4 most things and grade 5 something else, a year got lost somewhere), or you have two years with substantially the same content (which is basically why transitioning very early works), or you have to have a sufficiently large population of kids that are moving at a faster rate so you can hire a teacher to work with them at a rate of 1.5 "school years" per year in that subject.
In the Bluewater District School Board it was called TRAIL (To Realize Advanced & Independent Learning) -- that area was pretty rural but not as severe as "the only town in 40 minutes drive", though the towns within 40 minutes were pretty tiny. I'm pretty sure every school board does its own thing with its own "gifted budget" and when the students are spread over a greater geography, less gets done. Remember gifted teachers have travel time to consider...
It wasn't nearly as often as "one day a week" (more like an hour or two a week), and it actually tapered off in high school, geared more toward elementary school. There would be the occasional full day (or even a three day stretch up to once a year) where you'd go on a special field trip, which generally had higher student fees than a regular field trip (which would often have been "free") since they really struggled to do much of anything with their budget. A couple of the worse "regular" teachers seemed to resent us being pulled out of their classes and made a point of trying to include content on the test that was only available during the hour we were out. Most were more relaxed about it. I had a lot of fun in this time. I'm not entirely sure I got a lot of educational value, other than the change of pace (which I think can be underestimated). My major memories of that were just sitting around solving logic puzzles, or the occasional tale of some weird science discovery. We did at one point enter some Lego Mindstorms robot competition.
Why do you assume that *right now* we've reached the balance?
You can clearly see demographic trends changing for decades. Why is right now right, when that means that every previous time must have been wrong? What gives you that impression? Especially, why does it sicken you?
Cathedral and the bazaar isn't RMS' idea, that comes from Eric S. Raymond. And it's not about real world vs. theory -- they are both real world and exist in real working popular products.
And, crucially, RMS' work was used as an example of the cathedral. Linux was, of course, the bazaar.
Yes, and he's pointing out that the exact thing the parent said as an advantage for PNG is also its disadvantage.
A lossless compression format cannot compete with a good lossy compression format in terms of file sizes for arbitrary content, even though it wins by definition in terms of fidelity. The web, even today, is very bandwidth constrained and thus file sizes are one of the most important things to optimize against, for both the client and the server. Fidelity is often not a very important consideration.
On what do you base that? People die all the time. Even rich people. Everything you've said leads to "possibly" foul play, not "probably" foul play.
the police report was **completely inconclusive**
"no suspicion of 'foul play'" is a conclusion.
the context of the killing, namely the BTC armageddon, along with other factors leads to a rational suspicion of foul play
That also leads to rational suspicious of suicide. Why would somebody attack this person, of all people, due to BTC armageddon?
Generally --
Yes, conspiracies sometimes happen Most things that happen aren't a conspiracy, even if somebody somewhere would have a motivation Things that are conspiracies aren't any more successful than things that aren't (in other words, as rare as conspiracies are, most of them fail and some even shoot themselves in the foot) Somebody always has a motivation against a CEO
To make a convincing conspiracy play, you need to know:
Who would benefit from a coverup How hard would a coverup be Who has the resources to perform a coverup
Coverup is basically never a good first guess. Even when it is a coverup. Kind of like if you see a rich person spending money, "lottery winner" isn't a good first guess, even if you get lucky.
Apple asked for proof of ownership. Fair enough. They provided *three* forms of it.
Where are you getting that? They provided three documents, but since when was a death certificate "proof of ownership"?
A will is proof that a thing transferred ownership, although I would guess that the iPad wasn't called out specifically. The Solicitor's letter is the only thing that could possibly be a form of proof of ownership, but that's for the lawyers to talk about.
All that bibble about "what if" is bollocks.
No, it isn't. You need to have a system that keeps the bad guys out while accounting for situations like this. Accepting a death certificate as proof of ownership would be *ridiculous*. I could pull out my grandma's death certificate and takeover hundreds of iPads. This isn't hypothetical; I guarantee somebody has tried this before and will again. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it frankly is not obvious where exactly, but it is obvious that it's stricter than "death certificate & copy of a will".
I have no responsibility to your children. That's on your own shoulders.
Not specifically to his children, but generally, yes, you have the responsibility to minimize the harm you do to others to a reasonable degree.
If you're that concerned about me standing in line next to them at the supermarket, don't bring your kids to the supermarket and make sure you get your own vaccine.
He didn't say his kids were coming to the supermarket, and vaccinations aren't 100% effective. By willingly becoming an incubator for disease you are raising the risk to everyone. Unless you live in a hermetically sealed bubble or something.
but you need to sell this on the benefit to the individual getting that vaccine, and not try to put responsibility on their shoulders for everyone else around them
The problem is that the most important benefits (herd immunity and eventual disease extinction) *only work* as a group. They do not have nearly as much individual benefit.
Moreover, the general idea that you can only sell things to individuals and never to groups is very short-sighted.
How many times have you met someone who responds positively to being called an asshole to their face?
Here I'll agree. Though I will call someone an asshole if they come to work sick (provided your company has a reasonable sick time policy). That's going out of your way to infect your peers.
There are degrees of government pressure between total laissez-faire and shooting you. The stunningly obvious example is jail. To within experimental error, nobody ever seriously suggests execution for non-vaccinators (or small-time tax-evaders, or, or, or...), but you will find people in favour of some amount of jail time for those. There are other possible methods such as withheld services -- this is used for unvaccinated children often, which is especially justifiable since it could expose other children (even vaccinated kids, or unvaccinated with a proper medical excuse). Foreigners who want a US visa may be required to vaccinate as well. And that is, after all, how smallpox got eliminated.
I also believe that the US Government has no authority to force anyone to receive an injection.
Actually, I'd say the government absolutely has the authority to do this, because it's a matter of public safety. Whether the degree warrants it is something that can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.
Not quite. We have known cases of people being exonerated after taking a plea bargain when exculpatory evidence comes out. It is inherently difficult to figure out exactly how many innocent people are jailed, but we can put a floor on it and the floor is above 0.
Random example I found in two minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... After being released, he secretly recorded a confession from his "victim".
They've done studies like this one (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/) which show, when accused of a "crime" they didn't commit and offered a choice between a bad option and an investigation that could lead to a potentially-worse option, around half the people took the bargain. Obviously, the case here isn't the same as "5 years in jail and a life of minimum wage jobs vs. flip a coin, heads gets you life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, tails gets you a shot at a sports career".
When I start seeing movements to increase the dearth of men in the fulfilling career of nursing, I might start having some actual respect for efforts such as these.
It's been happening for a while, you just aren't paying attention. For example: http://aamn.org/aamn.shtml
Some people get stuck in a single solution mentality. There may well be less inherent motivation to join programming in women. But every time the point is even close to being raised, Slashdot seems to have a collective hissy fit and shuts down and refuses to talk about it. Which itself is a sign that there's probably a problem, because we can't even talk rationally about whether there's a problem.
And frankly, if you don't see discrimination against women in IT, you are really not paying attention. I say this as a man in software development. When we ask if there's a systemic bias, it doesn't mean "are you, briancox2, personally a sexist radical who advocates giving women 1/4 pay and rescinding the vote from them". I think a lot of people take it as a personal insult.
Absolutely be welcoming and warm in our acceptance of anyone. Totally agreed. And when we see inequality, think critically about the possible causes. Are women not interested? Are women too stupid (most agree that no, that's not it, but strictly it's a possibility)? Are women pushed out of the field intentionally? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by social factors? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by physical factors (as a ridiculous example, if upper body strength were correlated to typing speed)? Is it because women have better alternative options that men don't have? Is it because men have safety nets that women don't have, and thus men can choose a higher-stress occupation? Is it a combination of factors?
Is it possible that some of these factors are actually pushing women into the field, but other factors are stronger? For instance, hypothetically it's possible that women are actually much better suited than men at programming but they won't do it because they have a fulfilling career in nursing that men can't break into. I don't think anybody actually believes that one; I chose it specifically so that we wouldn't get off-point by debating specifics. I don't really know the answer and nobody on Slashdot is really talking about it. They've landed mostly on "it's 100% from natural preferences" with a few on the "umm, obvious pervasive sexism???" and just a couple "actually everyone is discriminating against white straight middle class men".
I don't think it should even be that. There's a specific touch gesture to get the start screen. You should get that when you use touch. You should get the other thing when you use mouse. And a hardware winkey on an actual keyboard should get the mouse one, and one on a tablet should get the touch one.
And there *should* be a way to get the touch stuff via mouse and vice-versa, but the default should be optimized to what the user is using.
I'd prefer such a currency if it, as a side effect, solved useful problems, vs. one that does busywork and has no useful side effects. Even if it's only marginally useful.
You make an interesting point vs. the classical financial system, and I'd like to hear more on that. I can't immediately see why, if we all flipped to bitcoin tomorrow, we wouldn't need essentially all the same infrastructure, plus a little bit of new waste. I feel like you think I'm missing something important, and would like to know what it is.
Even so, if we can flip in one step to something where the proof-of-work is actually useful, that would be a wonderful achievement. It leaves a really bad taste when random jackasses who are intentionally wanton are rewarded financially for their waste (see posts years back about people stealing electricity from other places to mine bitcoins back when that was still somewhat feasible).
Slashdot Mirror
Look at this clause from the article:
3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates.
That's interesting because it suggests it's non-tech-wages being held down. It would still be blatantly illegal I think, but it undermines much of the rhetoric about this issue. Doesn't completely destroy it -- some agreements might have that for engineering candidates.
The real question is, does it make a difference to the thief if the punishment is 10 years or 20 years? I am skeptical that people will take the risk for 10 years that wouldn't take it for 20 years.
and the prevention crime through the deterrence of punishment for those who cannot.
I would say the prevention of crime is the goal, and end it there. "Deterrence of punishment" is a potential means, and maybe you can argue it's the best one, but it has no place in a statement of goals, since it begs the question. Rehabilitation is actually just another method for preventing crime, and I would say it's not really the main goal of any place's system, though it's interesting to think about what it means to promote it to the status of goal.
Wikipedia has a pretty good run-down of the methods for preventing crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
It calls them "reasons for punishment", but rehabilitation doesn't seem like a "reason for punishment" since rehabilitation is, theoretically, to the benefit of all, criminal included. I would argue that all of these are, however, methods of preventing crime. Even retribution, interestingly because the intent is to prevent crimes committed by people who were innocent of previous crimes, eg. vigilantism. Although I still think retribution is disgusting and I question its effectiveness at reducing crime, I acknowledge it exists as a potential method to reduce crime.
I am extremely skeptical of the hypothesis that people who get flu shots have a significantly different intelligence profile than the total population. You're basing too strong a conclusion on little contextual data.
I'm from Canada (so in North America) and while I've heard this construction before, I do find it awkward and "rustic" and have to think about what anymore is supposed to mean. It holds similar associations to me as "ain't", which is a word I never use outside of quotations, but understand perfectly well and has become semi-standard in some dialects. Likewise, I would never spontaneously speak a sentence that used "anymore" in that manner. A similar informal word that I would use in those situations is "nowadays".
The usage discussion at merriam-webster suggests that the positive statement usage is a phenomenon through most of the US, and mostly within the US: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Like it says, I tend to reserve anymore for negative constructions or questions. I can't assign a good reason for why I do it like that, but it's the case.
The problems with mining Titan for gas is not a shortage of methane on earth. Thus your argument is specious.
There's very good reason that mining methane from Titan is prohibitively difficult in the foreseeable future, but there's no good reason to think it's an assured net loss, for all time, for every resource. It would be a trade of some resources for others.
It would definitely have to be a robotic operation, no question. Once you say that, the low temperature isn't such a big deal (we could in principle build something for which the Earth is an incredibly hostile hot environment), especially since with a fuel source (like, say, methane) it's relatively easy to heat a local environment, compared to trying to cool it out a hot planet. Thus the Antarctica comparison is very far from being the biggest problem.
Your grandchildren will know how to shoe a horse, not fly a starship to Pluto, do you also understand that?
I find it really oddly specific that you think there will be such a catastrophe that we'll be back to wanting to ride horses, but not such a catastrophe that shoeing horses remains uncommon. I almost wonder if you're the one who is messed up by the movies.
You seem fixated on the *wrong problems* and I think that undermines your argument. That and your strawman about "Space Nutters" (which sounds like a sci fi porn title).
Have each connection prefaced by a communications protocol version. Refuse connection to anything not running the correct protocol version.
Doing this is tantamount to breaking the software, and as such, it should no longer be available in the store. This is presumably the mechanism for pulling things out of the store when you pull out the corresponding server-side functionality.
Make a simple and explicit notice that if the user refuses auto-updates, the user is subsequently on their own, and it's up to them to keep track of future security updates and make sure there hasn't been a compromising bug discovered.
A cancel or allow dialog? When did those become popular again?
I've been frustrated with updates that seem like downgrades too. I still really hate Apple Maps (lack of integrated transit directions alone is a dealbreaker).
Seems to me that a default-allow, but developer disallowable option on the store is the best option. As noted, the developer can do that anyway, it's just that if they implement it themselves it's worse for everybody.
You absolutely see Microsoft advocating permanent residence for H1B holders, which in economic terms is basically the same thing as citizenship and is in any case a necessary step.
For instance:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/fed...
" Microsoft has called on the feds to issue 20,000 more H-1B visas and 20,000 additional green cards per year"
Exactly one more green card per extra H-1B.
I actually did have that, and they put me way ahead in math compared to the rest of my courses (Canada). Got to the point where I deliberately slowed my math education in high school so I'd still have some math left to take in my final year before University -- wouldn't want to get rusty, but it was a rural school system so there were only so many math courses to take.
A problem is transitioning. This can maybe work if you fail kids at the level of individual classes. But to skip ahead you either have to do it very early (as in my case), or you have to help the kid transition and catch up with content he missed (if you start in grade 3 everything and end in grade 4 most things and grade 5 something else, a year got lost somewhere), or you have two years with substantially the same content (which is basically why transitioning very early works), or you have to have a sufficiently large population of kids that are moving at a faster rate so you can hire a teacher to work with them at a rate of 1.5 "school years" per year in that subject.
In the Bluewater District School Board it was called TRAIL (To Realize Advanced & Independent Learning) -- that area was pretty rural but not as severe as "the only town in 40 minutes drive", though the towns within 40 minutes were pretty tiny. I'm pretty sure every school board does its own thing with its own "gifted budget" and when the students are spread over a greater geography, less gets done. Remember gifted teachers have travel time to consider...
It wasn't nearly as often as "one day a week" (more like an hour or two a week), and it actually tapered off in high school, geared more toward elementary school. There would be the occasional full day (or even a three day stretch up to once a year) where you'd go on a special field trip, which generally had higher student fees than a regular field trip (which would often have been "free") since they really struggled to do much of anything with their budget. A couple of the worse "regular" teachers seemed to resent us being pulled out of their classes and made a point of trying to include content on the test that was only available during the hour we were out. Most were more relaxed about it. I had a lot of fun in this time. I'm not entirely sure I got a lot of educational value, other than the change of pace (which I think can be underestimated). My major memories of that were just sitting around solving logic puzzles, or the occasional tale of some weird science discovery. We did at one point enter some Lego Mindstorms robot competition.
Why do you assume that *right now* we've reached the balance?
You can clearly see demographic trends changing for decades. Why is right now right, when that means that every previous time must have been wrong? What gives you that impression? Especially, why does it sicken you?
Cathedral and the bazaar isn't RMS' idea, that comes from Eric S. Raymond. And it's not about real world vs. theory -- they are both real world and exist in real working popular products.
And, crucially, RMS' work was used as an example of the cathedral. Linux was, of course, the bazaar.
Walking to work is fantastic. New York doesn't have a lock on that. I walk to work. I kind of hate driving.
I'll grant some of these other cities have problems with that.
Yes, and he's pointing out that the exact thing the parent said as an advantage for PNG is also its disadvantage.
A lossless compression format cannot compete with a good lossy compression format in terms of file sizes for arbitrary content, even though it wins by definition in terms of fidelity. The web, even today, is very bandwidth constrained and thus file sizes are one of the most important things to optimize against, for both the client and the server. Fidelity is often not a very important consideration.
wrong...this is probably a cover-up
On what do you base that? People die all the time. Even rich people. Everything you've said leads to "possibly" foul play, not "probably" foul play.
the police report was **completely inconclusive**
"no suspicion of 'foul play'" is a conclusion.
the context of the killing, namely the BTC armageddon, along with other factors leads to a rational suspicion of foul play
That also leads to rational suspicious of suicide. Why would somebody attack this person, of all people, due to BTC armageddon?
Generally --
Yes, conspiracies sometimes happen
Most things that happen aren't a conspiracy, even if somebody somewhere would have a motivation
Things that are conspiracies aren't any more successful than things that aren't (in other words, as rare as conspiracies are, most of them fail and some even shoot themselves in the foot)
Somebody always has a motivation against a CEO
To make a convincing conspiracy play, you need to know:
Who would benefit from a coverup
How hard would a coverup be
Who has the resources to perform a coverup
Coverup is basically never a good first guess. Even when it is a coverup. Kind of like if you see a rich person spending money, "lottery winner" isn't a good first guess, even if you get lucky.
Apple asked for proof of ownership. Fair enough. They provided *three* forms of it.
Where are you getting that? They provided three documents, but since when was a death certificate "proof of ownership"?
A will is proof that a thing transferred ownership, although I would guess that the iPad wasn't called out specifically. The Solicitor's letter is the only thing that could possibly be a form of proof of ownership, but that's for the lawyers to talk about.
All that bibble about "what if" is bollocks.
No, it isn't. You need to have a system that keeps the bad guys out while accounting for situations like this. Accepting a death certificate as proof of ownership would be *ridiculous*. I could pull out my grandma's death certificate and takeover hundreds of iPads. This isn't hypothetical; I guarantee somebody has tried this before and will again. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it frankly is not obvious where exactly, but it is obvious that it's stricter than "death certificate & copy of a will".
I have no responsibility to your children. That's on your own shoulders.
Not specifically to his children, but generally, yes, you have the responsibility to minimize the harm you do to others to a reasonable degree.
If you're that concerned about me standing in line next to them at the supermarket, don't bring your kids to the supermarket and make sure you get your own vaccine.
He didn't say his kids were coming to the supermarket, and vaccinations aren't 100% effective. By willingly becoming an incubator for disease you are raising the risk to everyone. Unless you live in a hermetically sealed bubble or something.
but you need to sell this on the benefit to the individual getting that vaccine, and not try to put responsibility on their shoulders for everyone else around them
The problem is that the most important benefits (herd immunity and eventual disease extinction) *only work* as a group. They do not have nearly as much individual benefit.
Moreover, the general idea that you can only sell things to individuals and never to groups is very short-sighted.
How many times have you met someone who responds positively to being called an asshole to their face?
Here I'll agree. Though I will call someone an asshole if they come to work sick (provided your company has a reasonable sick time policy). That's going out of your way to infect your peers.
they send a man to your house to shoot you.
Home vaccine delivery. Nice!
There are degrees of government pressure between total laissez-faire and shooting you. The stunningly obvious example is jail. To within experimental error, nobody ever seriously suggests execution for non-vaccinators (or small-time tax-evaders, or, or, or...), but you will find people in favour of some amount of jail time for those. There are other possible methods such as withheld services -- this is used for unvaccinated children often, which is especially justifiable since it could expose other children (even vaccinated kids, or unvaccinated with a proper medical excuse). Foreigners who want a US visa may be required to vaccinate as well. And that is, after all, how smallpox got eliminated.
I also believe that the US Government has no authority to force anyone to receive an injection.
Actually, I'd say the government absolutely has the authority to do this, because it's a matter of public safety. Whether the degree warrants it is something that can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.
Not quite. We have known cases of people being exonerated after taking a plea bargain when exculpatory evidence comes out. It is inherently difficult to figure out exactly how many innocent people are jailed, but we can put a floor on it and the floor is above 0.
Random example I found in two minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... After being released, he secretly recorded a confession from his "victim".
They've done studies like this one (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/) which show, when accused of a "crime" they didn't commit and offered a choice between a bad option and an investigation that could lead to a potentially-worse option, around half the people took the bargain. Obviously, the case here isn't the same as "5 years in jail and a life of minimum wage jobs vs. flip a coin, heads gets you life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, tails gets you a shot at a sports career".
It's species, not "specie". The s is part of the word.
Specie is metal currency.
When I start seeing movements to increase the dearth of men in the fulfilling career of nursing, I might start having some actual respect for efforts such as these.
It's been happening for a while, you just aren't paying attention. For example: http://aamn.org/aamn.shtml
Some people get stuck in a single solution mentality. There may well be less inherent motivation to join programming in women. But every time the point is even close to being raised, Slashdot seems to have a collective hissy fit and shuts down and refuses to talk about it. Which itself is a sign that there's probably a problem, because we can't even talk rationally about whether there's a problem.
And frankly, if you don't see discrimination against women in IT, you are really not paying attention. I say this as a man in software development. When we ask if there's a systemic bias, it doesn't mean "are you, briancox2, personally a sexist radical who advocates giving women 1/4 pay and rescinding the vote from them". I think a lot of people take it as a personal insult.
Absolutely be welcoming and warm in our acceptance of anyone. Totally agreed. And when we see inequality, think critically about the possible causes. Are women not interested? Are women too stupid (most agree that no, that's not it, but strictly it's a possibility)? Are women pushed out of the field intentionally? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by social factors? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by physical factors (as a ridiculous example, if upper body strength were correlated to typing speed)? Is it because women have better alternative options that men don't have? Is it because men have safety nets that women don't have, and thus men can choose a higher-stress occupation? Is it a combination of factors?
Is it possible that some of these factors are actually pushing women into the field, but other factors are stronger? For instance, hypothetically it's possible that women are actually much better suited than men at programming but they won't do it because they have a fulfilling career in nursing that men can't break into. I don't think anybody actually believes that one; I chose it specifically so that we wouldn't get off-point by debating specifics. I don't really know the answer and nobody on Slashdot is really talking about it. They've landed mostly on "it's 100% from natural preferences" with a few on the "umm, obvious pervasive sexism???" and just a couple "actually everyone is discriminating against white straight middle class men".
It's hard to even debate this -- this is a pretty fundamental disagreement in ethics.
If A should be a crime, then intentionally trying to cause A to happen should be a crime.
I don't think it should even be that. There's a specific touch gesture to get the start screen. You should get that when you use touch. You should get the other thing when you use mouse. And a hardware winkey on an actual keyboard should get the mouse one, and one on a tablet should get the touch one.
And there *should* be a way to get the touch stuff via mouse and vice-versa, but the default should be optimized to what the user is using.
Projector scenarios are likely the killer-app for "per monitor DPI", and it's not actually all that rare in enterprise settings.
I'd prefer such a currency if it, as a side effect, solved useful problems, vs. one that does busywork and has no useful side effects. Even if it's only marginally useful.
You make an interesting point vs. the classical financial system, and I'd like to hear more on that. I can't immediately see why, if we all flipped to bitcoin tomorrow, we wouldn't need essentially all the same infrastructure, plus a little bit of new waste. I feel like you think I'm missing something important, and would like to know what it is.
Even so, if we can flip in one step to something where the proof-of-work is actually useful, that would be a wonderful achievement. It leaves a really bad taste when random jackasses who are intentionally wanton are rewarded financially for their waste (see posts years back about people stealing electricity from other places to mine bitcoins back when that was still somewhat feasible).