You act like blame is a zero sum game. If you go into the Bronx as a 5'2 woman in a low-cut dress driving a Lexus, park it on the street with your windows down and some money on the seat, and go for a walk at 2am-- I can tell you that you will have a bad night.
You can say "oh but thats blaming the victim". Whatever-- If I have a daughter and she gets old enough to drive, Im going to warn her not to do boneheaded things that will increase her risk to that level. You can either live in your fantasy land where women SHOULD be able to walk around the hood at 2am, or you can live in reality, understand that people will take advantage of you, and minimize your risk.
Im also not 100% clear what you're arguing for here. I was simply saying that, while standing up for the rights of the accused may be a good thing, you're far better off if you simply dont commit crimes that will place you in a position of needing to invoke those rights. Im really not sure what part of that is blaming the victim.
Being polite and respectful doesnt mean being a wet noodle with no backbone, it means not looking for a fight. For instance, this would be wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, the guy has no cause to answer questions. But not lowering your window? Immediately taking a hostile stance? You can just say "Listen officer, Im big into constitutional rights and I dont want to cause trouble but I dont feel like I can in good conscience answer your questions." You could call him sir, and speak clearly so he doesnt have to ask you to roll your window down.
(All of that ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the cops DO have the right to question the man, so his entire stance is a poor one with no actual legal basis)
None of that has to put you at risk, but the difference between being a total douche about it and being courteous is pretty big.
2: Don't be "visible". Dress like a mouth, and you will be treated as one.
This is an interesting one. While discussing the Michael Brown case, someone noted that, "noone should be shot while unarmed-- thats not even up for discussion. But it sure would be nice if someone like Michael Brown whose been made a martyr hadnt just been abusing a shopkeeper several minutes prior to his shooting."
And the funny thing is, when you look at other media martyrs, you often see that they too arent really as squeaky clean as you might want your rallying point-- like that woman who got pulled into a RIAA case because "her daughter had been using Kazaa", until we later found out that she had heavily perjured herself and attempted to destroy evidence, or the case of Joel Tenenbaum (very similar).
My theory is, regardless of the corruption or lack thereof in our society, if you go out of your way to break the law and cause trouble, youre simply more likely to run into the less pleasant elements in the police force.
We should certainly, absolutely strive to eliminate any and all corruption, abuse of power, racism, and cronyism in our police force. But I would recommend to anyone in the meantime, that if you want a sure-fire way to avoid having to deal with it-- dont put yourself in situations where the cops have to know who you are. Thats just generally good life advice.
The media says that. Im not sure what statistics you're using, but Id be interested in seeing them.
Granted I am a middle class white male, but my experience with the cops in the DC metro area has been generally good. FWIW my only bad cop experiences have been in DC itself, and it would be strange to attribute it to racism as generally the cops cant tell your race prior to pulling you over.
Just in the future dont say "statistics say..." unless you're prepared to pull out those statistics.
Not to mention the utter lack of anyone knowing how to formulate a self-aware algorithm.
The entire premise that true AI is even possible is highly speculative at best in any case; I think further speculating on when said hypothetical AI will take over or whether we will have the resources to fuel its ravenous power appetite is a little premature.
Im of the opinion that such AIs are not possible, and that if they are we are several hundred years from being close to one. We havent even solved the philosophical questions around determinism, free will, and the "brain in a glass jar" after thousands of years of philosophical study; how on earth are we to begin creating artifical intelligence without having figured out how intelligence in general works?
There has been growth in the artificial intelligence field?
Here I thought there had been absolutely no change in the amount of awareness and agency we can imbue a computer program with. Silly me.
I mean, I suppose linear growth with a slope of zero is technically still linear growth, but you wouldnt call it exponential (perhaps your exponent is also zero?)
These kids are basically being taught (for good reasons) how to behave safely in the face of institutional racism.
Rules of engagement for most situations you will encounter in your adult life:
1) dont be confrontational 2) if you're itching for a fight, you're doing it wrong 3) be respectful 4) always act as if you are on camera and its going on the news
Example: on modern Mac laptops it costs $700 to fix a broken key, because the keyboard is bonded to the underside of the top plate around which the entire laptop is built and which is not available as a new DIY repair part
Pretty sure thats not correct, last time I got a quote for trackpad repair it was $125.
. If the insurance company mispredicts risk it can be better for you
They dont predict it, they source that to actuaries who provide them with statically backed risk figures. Good luck predicting risk better than them.
AppleCare is less than half that amount and lasts 3 years.
Thats because statistically the product is unlikely to fail in that time. Its likely to fail AFTER that time, which is why warranties typically top out at 3 years for laptops.
But if it makes you feel better, you keep buying it.
Insurance over things you can afford to replace is never worth it.
For insurance to work, the insurance company needs to charge you a cost that is greater than the annualized cost of loss-- that is, the risk that a loss will happen times the cost of that loss. That can make sense with things like medical bills where the risk is extremely low, but the cost is extremely high and could bankrupt you.
Doing it with a phone is just costing you more money over the long haul than simply replacing the phone when a loss happens.
Theres some irony in calling another stupid by way of an ad hominem.
Calling Republicans "stupid" and "wingnuts" and indicating they "lack the critical thinking skills", that we're "propogandized".... is there any substance to whatever stance you have, or can we just boil it down to If (isNotDemocrat) THEN
isTheEnemy;
enemyDeservesOneThing; End If
If anythings going to break this country its the spread of absurd extreme partisan divisiveness. Some day you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that roughly half of the country is just as intelligent as you, but completely disagrees with your politics. It doesnt have to kill you to recognize that Conservatives may have legitimate concerns, and may actually not be dumb.
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Im a pretty solid conservative and I too think you're off your rocker.
Obama's policies may often be (IMHO) bad for the country, but I think it takes a large number of terrible assumptions to get anywhere close to "Obama hates America". For one, one of his main roles as President (at least in today's politics) is try to drive congressional action. For him to get his "hate america, must destroy" agenda into action hes got to convince a majority of 535 congressional representatives on his side. Hes also got to trick his own political party to go along with the whole "hate america" plan.
It also makes no sense; regardless of whether you buy into the birther thing, Obama's ties are very clearly to the US, and anything that he does that harms the US in the long run will affect him, too.
Because that is likely a generic crash handler, and when you've crashed you cant exactly ask the crashed application what its purpose is. If your app WizzBang crashes, how is the crash dialog going to know what its job is?
Easiest thing to do is to day "[App Name] isnt responding. Would you like to close it?"
Why not just restart it? Because that could cause a crash loop. Maybe a recent change broke something necessary for the app to run.
My point? The windows API is *huge* not everyone knows every little detail
Case in point, parent is apparently unaware that the WMI Win32_OperatingSystem class provides multiple different ways of getting the OS version, and 2 of them will return the plain-text OS version.
As I recall, WPIW is a notable program that relies on both Windows version # and plaintext name for filtering.
Sure it does. PS> $os = get-wmiobject -class Win32_OperatingSystem PS> $os.caption Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro PS> $os.name Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro|C:\Windows|\Device\Harddisk0\Partition2 PS> $os.version 6.3.9600
It actually goes to show that you can make anything written by anyone, ever, ridiculous if you disregard context and standard literary techniques.
I could remark that your sentence is absurd because it calls the use of literature "dangerous" when it presents no risk of harm-- but then, that would demonstrate an absurd ignorance of context and colloquialism. Why should we tolerate it when people apply it to religion?
Slashdot Mirror
You act like blame is a zero sum game. If you go into the Bronx as a 5'2 woman in a low-cut dress driving a Lexus, park it on the street with your windows down and some money on the seat, and go for a walk at 2am-- I can tell you that you will have a bad night.
You can say "oh but thats blaming the victim". Whatever-- If I have a daughter and she gets old enough to drive, Im going to warn her not to do boneheaded things that will increase her risk to that level. You can either live in your fantasy land where women SHOULD be able to walk around the hood at 2am, or you can live in reality, understand that people will take advantage of you, and minimize your risk.
Im also not 100% clear what you're arguing for here. I was simply saying that, while standing up for the rights of the accused may be a good thing, you're far better off if you simply dont commit crimes that will place you in a position of needing to invoke those rights. Im really not sure what part of that is blaming the victim.
Being polite and respectful doesnt mean being a wet noodle with no backbone, it means not looking for a fight. For instance, this would be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, the guy has no cause to answer questions. But not lowering your window? Immediately taking a hostile stance? You can just say "Listen officer, Im big into constitutional rights and I dont want to cause trouble but I dont feel like I can in good conscience answer your questions." You could call him sir, and speak clearly so he doesnt have to ask you to roll your window down.
(All of that ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the cops DO have the right to question the man, so his entire stance is a poor one with no actual legal basis)
None of that has to put you at risk, but the difference between being a total douche about it and being courteous is pretty big.
2: Don't be "visible". Dress like a mouth, and you will be treated as one.
This is an interesting one. While discussing the Michael Brown case, someone noted that, "noone should be shot while unarmed-- thats not even up for discussion. But it sure would be nice if someone like Michael Brown whose been made a martyr hadnt just been abusing a shopkeeper several minutes prior to his shooting."
And the funny thing is, when you look at other media martyrs, you often see that they too arent really as squeaky clean as you might want your rallying point-- like that woman who got pulled into a RIAA case because "her daughter had been using Kazaa", until we later found out that she had heavily perjured herself and attempted to destroy evidence, or the case of Joel Tenenbaum (very similar).
My theory is, regardless of the corruption or lack thereof in our society, if you go out of your way to break the law and cause trouble, youre simply more likely to run into the less pleasant elements in the police force.
We should certainly, absolutely strive to eliminate any and all corruption, abuse of power, racism, and cronyism in our police force. But I would recommend to anyone in the meantime, that if you want a sure-fire way to avoid having to deal with it-- dont put yourself in situations where the cops have to know who you are. Thats just generally good life advice.
When 99% of the apples are rotten, you throw the whole lot away.
Does anyone in this thread have actual statistics, or is this just a bunch of anecdotes and media narratives being parroted?
but statistics say you're a bad cop.
The media says that. Im not sure what statistics you're using, but Id be interested in seeing them.
Granted I am a middle class white male, but my experience with the cops in the DC metro area has been generally good. FWIW my only bad cop experiences have been in DC itself, and it would be strange to attribute it to racism as generally the cops cant tell your race prior to pulling you over.
Just in the future dont say "statistics say..." unless you're prepared to pull out those statistics.
Brains are also not digital, and theres the minor issue that we still cant really quantify "self" purely in terms of hardware.
Not to mention the utter lack of anyone knowing how to formulate a self-aware algorithm.
The entire premise that true AI is even possible is highly speculative at best in any case; I think further speculating on when said hypothetical AI will take over or whether we will have the resources to fuel its ravenous power appetite is a little premature.
Im of the opinion that such AIs are not possible, and that if they are we are several hundred years from being close to one. We havent even solved the philosophical questions around determinism, free will, and the "brain in a glass jar" after thousands of years of philosophical study; how on earth are we to begin creating artifical intelligence without having figured out how intelligence in general works?
There has been growth in the artificial intelligence field?
Here I thought there had been absolutely no change in the amount of awareness and agency we can imbue a computer program with. Silly me.
I mean, I suppose linear growth with a slope of zero is technically still linear growth, but you wouldnt call it exponential (perhaps your exponent is also zero?)
These kids are basically being taught (for good reasons) how to behave safely in the face of institutional racism.
Rules of engagement for most situations you will encounter in your adult life:
1) dont be confrontational
2) if you're itching for a fight, you're doing it wrong
3) be respectful
4) always act as if you are on camera and its going on the news
Example: on modern Mac laptops it costs $700 to fix a broken key, because the keyboard is bonded to the underside of the top plate around which the entire laptop is built and which is not available as a new DIY repair part
Pretty sure thats not correct, last time I got a quote for trackpad repair it was $125.
. If the insurance company mispredicts risk it can be better for you
They dont predict it, they source that to actuaries who provide them with statically backed risk figures. Good luck predicting risk better than them.
AppleCare is less than half that amount and lasts 3 years.
Thats because statistically the product is unlikely to fail in that time. Its likely to fail AFTER that time, which is why warranties typically top out at 3 years for laptops.
But if it makes you feel better, you keep buying it.
Insurance over things you can afford to replace is never worth it.
For insurance to work, the insurance company needs to charge you a cost that is greater than the annualized cost of loss-- that is, the risk that a loss will happen times the cost of that loss. That can make sense with things like medical bills where the risk is extremely low, but the cost is extremely high and could bankrupt you.
Doing it with a phone is just costing you more money over the long haul than simply replacing the phone when a loss happens.
Hard refers to scratch resistance. Its antonym is soft.
Flexible refers to being able to bend. Its antonym is rigid.
That's extremely stupid even for a Republican.
Theres some irony in calling another stupid by way of an ad hominem.
Calling Republicans "stupid" and "wingnuts" and indicating they "lack the critical thinking skills", that we're "propogandized".... is there any substance to whatever stance you have, or can we just boil it down to
If (isNotDemocrat) THEN
isTheEnemy;
enemyDeservesOneThing;
End If
If anythings going to break this country its the spread of absurd extreme partisan divisiveness. Some day you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that roughly half of the country is just as intelligent as you, but completely disagrees with your politics. It doesnt have to kill you to recognize that Conservatives may have legitimate concerns, and may actually not be dumb.
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Im a pretty solid conservative and I too think you're off your rocker.
Obama's policies may often be (IMHO) bad for the country, but I think it takes a large number of terrible assumptions to get anywhere close to "Obama hates America". For one, one of his main roles as President (at least in today's politics) is try to drive congressional action. For him to get his "hate america, must destroy" agenda into action hes got to convince a majority of 535 congressional representatives on his side. Hes also got to trick his own political party to go along with the whole "hate america" plan.
It also makes no sense; regardless of whether you buy into the birther thing, Obama's ties are very clearly to the US, and anything that he does that harms the US in the long run will affect him, too.
Violate his oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land?
Because that is likely a generic crash handler, and when you've crashed you cant exactly ask the crashed application what its purpose is. If your app WizzBang crashes, how is the crash dialog going to know what its job is?
Easiest thing to do is to day "[App Name] isnt responding. Would you like to close it?"
Why not just restart it? Because that could cause a crash loop. Maybe a recent change broke something necessary for the app to run.
Because it adds cost for something that very few people do, and for something that doesnt take much time in any case.
So flip the screen vertical. If you game, as well, the solution is just as obvious: 2 widescreens, one vertical, one horizontal.
My point? The windows API is *huge* not everyone knows every little detail
Case in point, parent is apparently unaware that the WMI Win32_OperatingSystem class provides multiple different ways of getting the OS version, and 2 of them will return the plain-text OS version.
As I recall, WPIW is a notable program that relies on both Windows version # and plaintext name for filtering.
Sure it does.
PS> $os = get-wmiobject -class Win32_OperatingSystem
PS> $os.caption
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro
PS> $os.name
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro|C:\Windows|\Device\Harddisk0\Partition2
PS> $os.version
6.3.9600
The actual reported Windows version is a decimal:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...
Its synomymous with its kernel number (though that generally has further versioning, such as 6.1.7601.17592).
The windows version number and its kernel number are synonymous. When youre on Windows NT 5.2, you're on XP /2003. 6.1, Vista / Server 2008. And so on.
Imagine, as a thought experiment, if 90% of the people who owned Exxon stock sold it all. And no one else bought it because of principle
Er, if 90% sell it, someone has to buy it.
Last I checked there was no constitutional right to attend harvard, nor to be able to bite the hand that feeds you and still be fed.
It actually goes to show that you can make anything written by anyone, ever, ridiculous if you disregard context and standard literary techniques.
I could remark that your sentence is absurd because it calls the use of literature "dangerous" when it presents no risk of harm-- but then, that would demonstrate an absurd ignorance of context and colloquialism. Why should we tolerate it when people apply it to religion?