Construction workers wear hardhats to prevent falling objects from causing them injury. Or, at least, to mitigate the injury.
Nevertheless, it's still assault to bean an unsuspecting construction worker over the head with a baseball bat, or intentionally drop a brick on him, or whatever. Especially when you, the attacker, don't actually know if the other guy is wearing a hardhat. Even if you, the attacker, know the other guy is *supposed to* wear a hardhat.
Similarly, even if you can defend against laser attacks -- which is a good idea -- doesn't mean it's acceptable to attack a helicopter with lasers.
Where do you get that idea? It says that nowhere in the summary or article.
It's saying you can get up to $10K *reward*, for information leading to an *arrest*.
So an analogy to your argument would be like the FBI instituting a $10K reward for information that leads to the arrest of people that shot at other people, and you claiming that was overstepping because it means that kids playing nerf guns have a $10K penalty.
Either you have information you aren't sharing with everybody else which is not common knowledge, or you're making things up. I'm guessing it's the second. I'm not saying that you're doing it maliciously -- it's likely an accidental misreading -- but it's nevertheless made-up and a distraction from the real issues.
No, it's a bit more like saying firing a gun at people should be illegal (barring exceptional circumstances) because you could blow away a crowd with an AK 47 assault rifle.
And then everybody else is saying "we should prove that less-dangerous guns than an AK 47 might be dangerous before we take the enormous step of instituting a fine for shooting at people", after the FBI noted that incidences of people trying to shoot others with guns had grown alarmingly high.
Frankly, in this case, I think if your actions are significant enough to get you caught, they will be significant enough to be harmful. Obviously pointing your iPhone at the airplane to take a selfie-picture with it in the background isn't going to be made a problem even if you are pointing the glow of the screen toward it. Remember, this is 10K for leading to the arrest of somebody being a jackass. You're not likely to get arrested for this unless the FBI has reason to investigate it.
I see slippery slope arguments on this one, and they just don't track. It's not legitimate "free speech" to shine a laser pointer at a plane to blind the pilot's eyes.
no one is being forced to use the beta site, and likely won't be required for months to come.
People want to get a jump on ensuring they will not be forced to use it ever, because it explicitly says we will be forced to use it in "several months" and more people are being placed in the painful default.
I actually think it looks kind of nice, but there's too few comments before "load more" and the comment threshold is insufficiently flexible. In my opinion, on a threaded conversation forum, it's just a terrible idea to completely hide posts. It keeps leading to misunderstandings where there's a string of asshole -1 posts between snide +5 posts, and then casual readers think the snide +5 posts are being assholes to each other, which generates real flame wars -- I think this is an actual problem in Classic Slashdot actually. But Classic Slashdot lets me put all the low-modded comments in a summary view, and everything else auto-expanded.
Also the serif fonts on the reply/share/etc. commands are jarring and ugly.
And the scaling is poor on thinner windows. If I use a maximized window, it's fine. I don't require text to go the full width of the screen; I know that optimal reading conditions actually favour a narrower column-width. But I don't run all my windows maximized all the time.
What I personally want is to never have to click "Load More" (even classic Slashdot fails here, but to be fair I only have to click one time, maybe two on a hyper-popular post, with my settings to see it all), to be able to have most posts be in an auto-summary view with good posts pre-expanded, and either no sidebar or at least one that stops taking layout space when it's empty so that I can control column-width. I'd get over the seriffed fonts easily, and I'd get over the column-width grudgingly. I will not get over "Load More" or the summary views, since if I see an incomplete list of posts, then Slashdot will have lost the attributes that make it a better discussion board for me than the random forums that infest the web. And if I see a complete list of posts, but they are all auto-expanded, then Slashdot would only be readable once its userbase decreases substantially.
May I introduce you to Ken Ham, the subject of this article, who literally argues for the ~6000 year old position.
This isn't really atheism vs. religion here, this is a certain brand of fundamentalist Christianity vs. anything other than that brand of fundamentalist Christianity.
A lot of Christians on this thread are pointing out that this brand of fundamentalist Christianity is actually fairly rare in reality, and I (as an atheist) agree, but the point being debated is exactly this brand of fundamentalist Christianity*.
You do yourself an extreme disservice when you act all martyr-y like this, when the subject is people who you actually disagree with. What keeps a "view of [you] low" is immediately identifying with this guy and acted wounded, rather than joining with the people arguing against this guy, who you don't actually disagree with (at least in this context).
*So many people are getting extremely defensive at these phrases, so I'm trying to spell this out explicitly. Sometimes, when I say "fundamentalist Christianity", somebody else instantly pops up to say that not all Christians are fundamentalist. Well, yeah, but I'm not talking about them, hence the adjective "fundamentalist". If it's not about you, then it's not about you, and there's no need to identify yourself with the people that it is about.
Windows 8 is using a hybrid shutdown which isn't actually available in Windows 7. The kernel is hibernated, but userland is actually shut down, as is the hardware session. http://www.techrepublic.com/bl....
A tax write-off doesn't make you money. It makes the spending you did cost a bit less, so it's at best a kind of discount on these Superbowl ads, but they are still really expensive.
A tax write-off is thus *almost never* the reason a business does something (there are some exceptions, eg. maybe for destroying inventory that you can't even sell for enough revenue to cover the tax on what it cost to make).
Advertising works, in aggregate. It might not work on you, but it does in aggregate, even though most people seem to think it doesn't work on them even when presented with incontrovertible evidence that it did. It might not be pleasant that it works, but it seems to empirically. And people literally watch the superbowl just for the ads, so you have guaranteed viewership.
I bet he doesn't know the answer. Your particular religious convictions on the matter are not well-known.
To the anonymous coward: this is typically a Jewish thing. There's a description here: http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm. Basically, when you write "God" in some permanent form on something, you aren't supposed to ever let it be defaced or erased, so if you want to write something down that you aren't keeping forever you should use a euphemism like "the lord" or "G-d". Forum posts aren't permanent, but if any slashdot user hits print then it becomes permanent, so they wrote "g*d" to prevent their words from being eventually made permanent and defaced without their knowledge. It's kind of like how some people, particularly older people, in the US want to burn a flag as a sort of ritual purification if it accidentally touches the ground (although the flag thing actually arises from a misunderstanding).
If that's *not* why BrokenSoldier did it, then I'm one more person who didn't "already know the answer".
So first off, the number of years it takes has nothing to do with whether the idea is stupid or cool. But that's okay because you'll be proven wrong within 20 years (my prediction). Actually I bet there will be some commercial ones on the road within 10 years, but not all that common, so 20 years is the safety. Your fifty year prediction is so out of touch it's ridiculous. You know we have prototypes of this *right now*? You know the technical problem is of a type known to be soluble and solved in other situations, unlike, say, true Artificial Intelligence, which is believed soluble but not solved in any other situation?
Flying cars, also known as helicopters, have not become cheap, true, but they have existed for a very long time. The trouble is they cost a lot more than regular cars, inherently, both to build and to maintain (eg. fuel).
The marginal cost on self-driving cars is in software, so it's virtually zero. Maybe some sensors, but many of those sensors are coming to driving cars anyway.
So if self-driving cars are like flying cars in other ways, then they will exist and they will be affordable.
Was the jetpack actually oft-predicted or was it always just sci-fi babble like warp drive?
Why are self-driving cars a stupid idea? And why is it not cool? I'd love to be able to just read or play games in the car (without being beholden to bus routes and schedules).
Still just a convenience. They still have local information (they can see what you can see), they'll have maps loaded, and when not in complete wilderness they'll also have wireless signals to locate them.
Congratulations, you have just applied Morton's Fork to the situation. In reality there's a gap between "not helping" and "we're done".
This is like not saving for retirement at 62 after working since 22 since at age 42 you can't retire yet so savings obviously isn't working.
Also, I've literally never seen an argument for letting trailer park residents starve to death, but I have no doubt that you can find morons that think that -- and that doesn't support your argument *at all*, first because in that case, they are being classist, and second because you can find all kinds of unicorns and they don't disprove the herd of horses. Also, I don't think they are starving to death, at least not in US trailer parks, so it's not a parallel situation.
I can hardly remember the last time I was on a plane that didn't have USB ports beside the in-flight entertainment system touchscreen (well, except for short-haul flights of 45 minutes). I usually fly Air Canada.
And second of all, why the fuck would you wait? You can't try to solve two problems at once? You have to wait for somebody else to solve an issue that doesn't affect you either (since you presumably aren't the one giving those women their sinecures) before you are willing to consider solving another one?
That's not what he said at all. It was more like women's emotions are too different from men's (not more emotional than men, but differently emotional to men) to succeed in an environment that caters to men's emotions.
I disagree with him though, but my disagreement is that men and women experience the world differently mainly because the world reacts differently to them. The first couple posts here were sexual comments. Even if you think women should just get over that, blah blah blah, you can't tell me that isn't a different reaction from the one men get. Especially when it was extremely predictable. This might have advantages for men sometimes and advantages for women sometimes but we're being foolish if we pretend that this doesn't happen and doesn't have effects that go beyond pure biological "men and women are wired differently" assertions (they are wired differently, but that's not the automatic sole answer to every societal observation about gender differences).
"best work for fraternity between nations" is one of the criteria for the Peace Prize. The short term effect was an international incident, sure, but the spying that was revealed was surely anti-"fraternity", so it fits.
Nope. The size (when not breastfeeding) is from the amount of fatty tissue, which is unrelated to the amount of milk-producing glandular tissue. It's possible to have not enough glandular tissue but it's very rare and takes insignificant space (enough glandular tissue to nurse exists in flat chested women).
Higher fertility wouldn't explain things because 97% of the time, humans have only one child at a time. And humans make enough milk for twins anyway, even conveniently having two breasts for simultaneous feeding.
I find it harder to gather information on wet nursing (we know that chimpanzees do wet nurse, but can't really give a rate) but let me express extreme skepticism that we had a significant selective pressure toward more milk production due to wet nursing. I can see *less* milk production as a plausible result of wet nursing, since it allows an optimized reallocation of milk resources. But regardless of whether wet nursing may or may not have increased or decreased human milk production, that's unrelated to breast size.
As for the cultures, that's a very good point but the thing is, non-sexualized breasts doesn't mean they aren't a sexual signal. Men (straight men) are undoubtedly attracted to women's faces, and yet faces are not generally considered sexualized, and (depending on where you live etc.) you can see hundreds or more women's faces every day and think nothing of it. The theory would be that breasts are the same way. Even in cultures that don't hyper-sexualize breasts, and women walk around topless without drawing any stares or raised eyebrows, the men can be attracted.
You are misreading the chart. That is nowhere close to 2%, even after the signing bonus.
See the bar on the far right for "$250,000 and over"? It's about 2.3% high. There's even a note about the first 4 percent being incomes greater than 200k. That 140K does not come close. Also it's not really reasonable to add the one-time 30k signing bonus.
When I read other articles it looks like Gates had 2 minutes total, not per move, which is more conventional for a chess game. The article writer may have been confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Construction workers wear hardhats to prevent falling objects from causing them injury. Or, at least, to mitigate the injury.
Nevertheless, it's still assault to bean an unsuspecting construction worker over the head with a baseball bat, or intentionally drop a brick on him, or whatever. Especially when you, the attacker, don't actually know if the other guy is wearing a hardhat. Even if you, the attacker, know the other guy is *supposed to* wear a hardhat.
Similarly, even if you can defend against laser attacks -- which is a good idea -- doesn't mean it's acceptable to attack a helicopter with lasers.
Because if one person was able to head closer to the laser, that means lasers have never incapacitated or endangered a helicopter pilot!
Where do you get that idea? It says that nowhere in the summary or article.
It's saying you can get up to $10K *reward*, for information leading to an *arrest*.
So an analogy to your argument would be like the FBI instituting a $10K reward for information that leads to the arrest of people that shot at other people, and you claiming that was overstepping because it means that kids playing nerf guns have a $10K penalty.
Either you have information you aren't sharing with everybody else which is not common knowledge, or you're making things up. I'm guessing it's the second. I'm not saying that you're doing it maliciously -- it's likely an accidental misreading -- but it's nevertheless made-up and a distraction from the real issues.
No, it's a bit more like saying firing a gun at people should be illegal (barring exceptional circumstances) because you could blow away a crowd with an AK 47 assault rifle.
And then everybody else is saying "we should prove that less-dangerous guns than an AK 47 might be dangerous before we take the enormous step of instituting a fine for shooting at people", after the FBI noted that incidences of people trying to shoot others with guns had grown alarmingly high.
Frankly, in this case, I think if your actions are significant enough to get you caught, they will be significant enough to be harmful. Obviously pointing your iPhone at the airplane to take a selfie-picture with it in the background isn't going to be made a problem even if you are pointing the glow of the screen toward it. Remember, this is 10K for leading to the arrest of somebody being a jackass. You're not likely to get arrested for this unless the FBI has reason to investigate it.
I see slippery slope arguments on this one, and they just don't track. It's not legitimate "free speech" to shine a laser pointer at a plane to blind the pilot's eyes.
no one is being forced to use the beta site, and likely won't be required for months to come.
People want to get a jump on ensuring they will not be forced to use it ever, because it explicitly says we will be forced to use it in "several months" and more people are being placed in the painful default.
I actually think it looks kind of nice, but there's too few comments before "load more" and the comment threshold is insufficiently flexible. In my opinion, on a threaded conversation forum, it's just a terrible idea to completely hide posts. It keeps leading to misunderstandings where there's a string of asshole -1 posts between snide +5 posts, and then casual readers think the snide +5 posts are being assholes to each other, which generates real flame wars -- I think this is an actual problem in Classic Slashdot actually. But Classic Slashdot lets me put all the low-modded comments in a summary view, and everything else auto-expanded.
Also the serif fonts on the reply/share/etc. commands are jarring and ugly.
And the scaling is poor on thinner windows. If I use a maximized window, it's fine. I don't require text to go the full width of the screen; I know that optimal reading conditions actually favour a narrower column-width. But I don't run all my windows maximized all the time.
What I personally want is to never have to click "Load More" (even classic Slashdot fails here, but to be fair I only have to click one time, maybe two on a hyper-popular post, with my settings to see it all), to be able to have most posts be in an auto-summary view with good posts pre-expanded, and either no sidebar or at least one that stops taking layout space when it's empty so that I can control column-width. I'd get over the seriffed fonts easily, and I'd get over the column-width grudgingly. I will not get over "Load More" or the summary views, since if I see an incomplete list of posts, then Slashdot will have lost the attributes that make it a better discussion board for me than the random forums that infest the web. And if I see a complete list of posts, but they are all auto-expanded, then Slashdot would only be readable once its userbase decreases substantially.
May I introduce you to Ken Ham, the subject of this article, who literally argues for the ~6000 year old position.
This isn't really atheism vs. religion here, this is a certain brand of fundamentalist Christianity vs. anything other than that brand of fundamentalist Christianity.
A lot of Christians on this thread are pointing out that this brand of fundamentalist Christianity is actually fairly rare in reality, and I (as an atheist) agree, but the point being debated is exactly this brand of fundamentalist Christianity*.
You do yourself an extreme disservice when you act all martyr-y like this, when the subject is people who you actually disagree with. What keeps a "view of [you] low" is immediately identifying with this guy and acted wounded, rather than joining with the people arguing against this guy, who you don't actually disagree with (at least in this context).
*So many people are getting extremely defensive at these phrases, so I'm trying to spell this out explicitly. Sometimes, when I say "fundamentalist Christianity", somebody else instantly pops up to say that not all Christians are fundamentalist. Well, yeah, but I'm not talking about them, hence the adjective "fundamentalist". If it's not about you, then it's not about you, and there's no need to identify yourself with the people that it is about.
Ken Ham is a YEC, as in a 6000-year-old creationist. Thus, that is the relevant interpretation of creationist in this context.
For this sort of thing it could reasonably be a subsidized transition, like the digital OTA transition.
Windows 8 is using a hybrid shutdown which isn't actually available in Windows 7. The kernel is hibernated, but userland is actually shut down, as is the hardware session. http://www.techrepublic.com/bl....
For the multi-session private browsing, open one private window, then go File->New Session.
Now you have two separate, private sessions. You can do this indefinitely.
The cookie sharing presumably exists because websites are broken without it.
A tax write-off doesn't make you money. It makes the spending you did cost a bit less, so it's at best a kind of discount on these Superbowl ads, but they are still really expensive.
A tax write-off is thus *almost never* the reason a business does something (there are some exceptions, eg. maybe for destroying inventory that you can't even sell for enough revenue to cover the tax on what it cost to make).
Advertising works, in aggregate. It might not work on you, but it does in aggregate, even though most people seem to think it doesn't work on them even when presented with incontrovertible evidence that it did. It might not be pleasant that it works, but it seems to empirically. And people literally watch the superbowl just for the ads, so you have guaranteed viewership.
I bet he doesn't know the answer. Your particular religious convictions on the matter are not well-known.
To the anonymous coward: this is typically a Jewish thing. There's a description here: http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm. Basically, when you write "God" in some permanent form on something, you aren't supposed to ever let it be defaced or erased, so if you want to write something down that you aren't keeping forever you should use a euphemism like "the lord" or "G-d". Forum posts aren't permanent, but if any slashdot user hits print then it becomes permanent, so they wrote "g*d" to prevent their words from being eventually made permanent and defaced without their knowledge. It's kind of like how some people, particularly older people, in the US want to burn a flag as a sort of ritual purification if it accidentally touches the ground (although the flag thing actually arises from a misunderstanding).
If that's *not* why BrokenSoldier did it, then I'm one more person who didn't "already know the answer".
So first off, the number of years it takes has nothing to do with whether the idea is stupid or cool. But that's okay because you'll be proven wrong within 20 years (my prediction). Actually I bet there will be some commercial ones on the road within 10 years, but not all that common, so 20 years is the safety. Your fifty year prediction is so out of touch it's ridiculous. You know we have prototypes of this *right now*? You know the technical problem is of a type known to be soluble and solved in other situations, unlike, say, true Artificial Intelligence, which is believed soluble but not solved in any other situation?
Flying cars, also known as helicopters, have not become cheap, true, but they have existed for a very long time. The trouble is they cost a lot more than regular cars, inherently, both to build and to maintain (eg. fuel).
The marginal cost on self-driving cars is in software, so it's virtually zero. Maybe some sensors, but many of those sensors are coming to driving cars anyway.
So if self-driving cars are like flying cars in other ways, then they will exist and they will be affordable.
Was the jetpack actually oft-predicted or was it always just sci-fi babble like warp drive?
Why are self-driving cars a stupid idea? And why is it not cool? I'd love to be able to just read or play games in the car (without being beholden to bus routes and schedules).
Still just a convenience. They still have local information (they can see what you can see), they'll have maps loaded, and when not in complete wilderness they'll also have wireless signals to locate them.
Why? Why India in particular?
Congratulations, you have just applied Morton's Fork to the situation. In reality there's a gap between "not helping" and "we're done".
This is like not saving for retirement at 62 after working since 22 since at age 42 you can't retire yet so savings obviously isn't working.
Also, I've literally never seen an argument for letting trailer park residents starve to death, but I have no doubt that you can find morons that think that -- and that doesn't support your argument *at all*, first because in that case, they are being classist, and second because you can find all kinds of unicorns and they don't disprove the herd of horses. Also, I don't think they are starving to death, at least not in US trailer parks, so it's not a parallel situation.
I can hardly remember the last time I was on a plane that didn't have USB ports beside the in-flight entertainment system touchscreen (well, except for short-haul flights of 45 minutes). I usually fly Air Canada.
This is, first of all, just not true in reverse.
And second of all, why the fuck would you wait? You can't try to solve two problems at once? You have to wait for somebody else to solve an issue that doesn't affect you either (since you presumably aren't the one giving those women their sinecures) before you are willing to consider solving another one?
That's not what he said at all. It was more like women's emotions are too different from men's (not more emotional than men, but differently emotional to men) to succeed in an environment that caters to men's emotions.
I disagree with him though, but my disagreement is that men and women experience the world differently mainly because the world reacts differently to them. The first couple posts here were sexual comments. Even if you think women should just get over that, blah blah blah, you can't tell me that isn't a different reaction from the one men get. Especially when it was extremely predictable. This might have advantages for men sometimes and advantages for women sometimes but we're being foolish if we pretend that this doesn't happen and doesn't have effects that go beyond pure biological "men and women are wired differently" assertions (they are wired differently, but that's not the automatic sole answer to every societal observation about gender differences).
"best work for fraternity between nations" is one of the criteria for the Peace Prize. The short term effect was an international incident, sure, but the spying that was revealed was surely anti-"fraternity", so it fits.
Size definitely does matter for milk production
Nope. The size (when not breastfeeding) is from the amount of fatty tissue, which is unrelated to the amount of milk-producing glandular tissue. It's possible to have not enough glandular tissue but it's very rare and takes insignificant space (enough glandular tissue to nurse exists in flat chested women).
Higher fertility wouldn't explain things because 97% of the time, humans have only one child at a time. And humans make enough milk for twins anyway, even conveniently having two breasts for simultaneous feeding.
I find it harder to gather information on wet nursing (we know that chimpanzees do wet nurse, but can't really give a rate) but let me express extreme skepticism that we had a significant selective pressure toward more milk production due to wet nursing. I can see *less* milk production as a plausible result of wet nursing, since it allows an optimized reallocation of milk resources. But regardless of whether wet nursing may or may not have increased or decreased human milk production, that's unrelated to breast size.
As for the cultures, that's a very good point but the thing is, non-sexualized breasts doesn't mean they aren't a sexual signal. Men (straight men) are undoubtedly attracted to women's faces, and yet faces are not generally considered sexualized, and (depending on where you live etc.) you can see hundreds or more women's faces every day and think nothing of it. The theory would be that breasts are the same way. Even in cultures that don't hyper-sexualize breasts, and women walk around topless without drawing any stares or raised eyebrows, the men can be attracted.
You are misreading the chart. That is nowhere close to 2%, even after the signing bonus.
See the bar on the far right for "$250,000 and over"? It's about 2.3% high. There's even a note about the first 4 percent being incomes greater than 200k. That 140K does not come close. Also it's not really reasonable to add the one-time 30k signing bonus.
Have a look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...
When I read other articles it looks like Gates had 2 minutes total, not per move, which is more conventional for a chess game. The article writer may have been confused.
You can lose in 2 rounds, which I believe is the theoretical minimum (short of a forfeit or renege anyway). I'm sure somebody has done that.