There is no need to assign any motives here. Sometimes I feel people have decided that when they abandon a belief that everything must have a purpose assigned by a micromanaging deity they retain some of that and insist that everything must have an evolutionary reason. People seem scared of randomness, meaninglessness, chaos. Then combine this with a warped idea of what evolution is (that it's to improve species) and this gets magnified. Thus they feel there must be an evolutionary answer to why there are grandparents, does being gay have an evolutionary reason, and so on. Social scientists drag in evolution to try and make sense of the chaos of society too. The news media spreads around all this stuff like it's valid. Lots of things are random, evolution can create side effects that are harmful, mutations stick around, a very wide bell curve of variations remains, and so on. So here, there's a perfectly normal rational reason for why these genes are activated after death, but still there's "maybe there's a reason for it" shows up again.
This is anthopomorphizing of evolution, like it has a motivation or goal. Another good word for it is "Panglossian", as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... "Spandrels" are an architecture feature have little functional or structural use, they exist as a by-product of the primary architectural structures. In Biology the same concept exists. A particular evolutionary advantage may have by products and side effects. Male nipples being an example, no real need for them, they only exist because of shared processes during fetal development. A gene does not do one and only one thing. Biological creatures are chaotic systems; turn on a simple protein here and all sorts of changes happen all over the creature. Panglossian Paradigm is to instead assume all these by products were due to evolutionary advantages rather than just being spandrels, or that if there were no advantage to male nipples that they'd have evolved away.
One MP in favor the the Brexit was asked why he believed X for a particular issue when the experts said Y, and his answer was along the lines of "we're sick and tired of experts". It's the attitude of voting with your guts rather than your brains, a populist attitude that you see that in the Brexit campaign as well as the Trump campaign.
Well, BBC poll results to indicate that poll turnout was lowest in areas with larger precentage of poll numbers, though the map is not very convincing (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028). Otherwise I can't find anything about percentage of younger people who voted.
Past numbers for 2010 showed a 51.8% turnout for 18-24 year olds versus 65% overall turnout rate. So it's indeed a lower turnout, however is that large enough to have made a difference? How many votes would you get from 13% more 18-24 year olds? Enough to change the final results?
I don't like to blame people for being the "cause" of an election results. Too much blame gets passed around every election, people need to start pointing the fingers at themselves instead of others. You don't encourage young people to go to the polls more often by accusing them of being the reason why things have gone wrong, instead you encourage them by letting them know their vote isn't wasted, that they're a part of the system, that voting is important. Ie, give a positive message (encouragement) rather than a negative message (blame).
I always felt that streaming was less efficient and convenient than the DVR model. A mix of the two would solve a lot of problems. But there are just so many streaming adopters who insist that bandwidth is plentiful and reliable that they don't understand the need for anything else. Streaming really only works today because a majority of video watchers are not using streaming. In the US we have a very large percentage of internet subscriber that can't download a two hour movie in two hours or less.
For instance, if everyone in the country decides to stream at the same time from 7:00pm to 10pm, prime time, then that's a huge hit in bandwidth for every ISP (many of which can not handle that much traffic). But then 3 hours later the internet is relatively idle because most people are asleep. It's just practical sense to download during off-peak hours and then watch whenever you want. Helps too if lots of people are downloading the same thing because then you can cache it on a local server, use multicast for a neighborhood, things like that. The content distributors save a lot of internet costs this way too
It reminds me of the early adopters of cable internet. They had extremely high bandwidth as they were the only persons in the neighborhood using the service, and they were extremely happy about it. A few years later and all their neighbors are using cable internet, shared on the same cable, and the early adopters are whining about how bad the service has degraded and insist that the cable companies must give the the same service they originally had (at the same price too).
The question from me is, what happens when Netflix loses the rights to the movie, which happens every few months when a lot of existing selections vanish and new ones show up? Are the downloaded movies no longer playable?
It also had the gigabit ethernet and HDMI/displayport. No usb 3.0 on my mac so the hub helps with that too. I know USB does audio but I've rarely seen any adapters for that, so having it on the hub was handy though not necessary at work. So one cable, as opposed to usb cable plus ethernet adapter plus video cable.
This is standard procedure, and not just from Comcast. Basically deny, deny, deny, and deny again any refunds or lower rates. Then when (and if) the story is discovered by the news immediately clear up all the red tape and apologize for a simple mix-up.
Of course, if the reverse happens, the companies would have someone come by and arrest you for theft.
I sort of wanted one at work. I have a Thunderbolt (2.0) hub, that has thunderbolt in, with thunderbolt, gigabit ethernet, usb 3.0, audio, mini display port, and hdmi out. The hope was that one cable was all I would need to plug in whenever I dock my laptop at work, which has two monitors. Turns out that the only way to get two monitors with fed from one thunderbolt cable is if one monitor takes thunderbolt directly. So while one thunderbolt cable can do one 4K monitor, it can't do two 1920 monitors. Oh well, at least it's only two cables I have to plug in.
This is a headphone jack. It's not going to fry your phone unless there's a voltage source at the other end of the jack. Even a really cheap and technically incompetent designer of the headphone isn't going to screw it up. If I have a $3 headphone jack that works with other phones, works with my tape player, my cd player, works with my laptop, then it should work on the iphone. This is not like a cheap ass USB-C cable that can damage your phone (which by the way you can still buy despite the MFI program).
Their reasoning is that become some cheap ass companies still manage to sell products even without Apple's approval that they will guarantee that no one will be able to use those products. This isn't actually their reason, it's just the reasoning they use to convince their fans that they're being above board, their real reason is that they want to shrink the phone even more and get some kickback from dongle sales.
Yes, Apple is a high price brand, but the other phone makers will see that no one complains about this change and start doing similar stuff themselves.
Yes, the organization that in recent decades has gained a very strong conservative bias and moved it's primary focus away from gun safety and towards gun rights lobbying. Are you trying to imply that they're centrist?
The point is that Sony gets punished for these shenanigans. A better resolution than Sony sitting back and thinking they can do whatever they want with those suckers who buy their products.
I think that rights are artificial constructs by people rather than being a sort of transcendant thing imbued at birth (or conception). At the time of the constitution everyone was very religious, so it was easier to just assume that a deity granted these rights and thus the debate was over on that matter, time then to turn to which of the many rights were divinely granted and which ones weren't. The idea of natural rights came about during the age of enlightmenment as people were moving away from rights being given by divinely appointed monarchs and needing something to hang their rights upon to give them legitimacy. Which is why you still hear people referring to "god given rights" as they're being given a sacred importance.
That's not to say that I reject the idea of rights. I love my rights, I want to keep them, and to do so I must rely on other humans assist me with this. However I don't really accept the metaphysical notion of natural rights. Natural rights are thing of philosophy and not science. What we have is that we've moved away from the idea that rights are handed down by the rulers which can change as you move around the world and to a notion that most societies across the world believes that certain rights should be protected for all humans (which is much more advanced thinking that that of the founding fathers).
Mostly what I reject is the idea that someone will defend their viewpoints by declaring something a "natural right" as if that is supposed to resolve things. It's an appeal to authority to end the debate.
What's an innate right, how is it defined and distinct from non-innate rights? Were the first humans born with it and only after many millenia were they finally recognized? This innate business is straying too close to a sort of religious concept of rights, something granted by a deity perhaps. If some rights are innate then why do different societies recognize different rights as the ones that are innate? America is really really big on individualism and our notion of rights is colored greatly by that, but in other countries where individualism is not very important you see that society with a very different view of rights.
Consider the native residents of the Americas. They had a very loose notion of private property. But the invading Europeans thought that private property was a fundamental right, and so began a displacement of one society by a different society. So today you have people who will defend vigorously the notion that they have an innate property right to something that was originally taken by force.
This is why I liked the concept in Eiffel. Basically pepper your code with lots of easy to use pre-condititions and post-conditions and develop that way, but in production you can disable those checks so that you don't have abysmal performance. Of course you need training for this, you can't just plop down any old Java programmer and have them do it right. I see code today where people just toss in asserts left and right for things that could be easily handled, so you end up with customers having regular crashes because some developer didn't think that an unexpected type of packet would show up.
Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate. You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have. We have more rights today because we have a more organized system of government compared to those given by warlords and conquerors in the past. These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed. They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons. All civil rights will remain intact. We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance and neither is freedom of religious activity. So having reasonable checks on gun ownership can be allowed without it being a removal of a civil right.
That's because there was not a large regular militia or large standing army. The duty of the militia was to essentially be draftees as necessary. This is completely opposite to the wing nut notion that the right to bear arms is necessary so that the government can be overthrown. Today we have a standing professional army. The need for reserve militias no longer remains. Red Dawn not withstanding, in the event of an invasion there will be enough people who have passed background checks who own guns to bolster the regular militia because no on in government is calling for a complete and total ban on private gun ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just read the books at any speed you like.
There is no need to assign any motives here. Sometimes I feel people have decided that when they abandon a belief that everything must have a purpose assigned by a micromanaging deity they retain some of that and insist that everything must have an evolutionary reason. People seem scared of randomness, meaninglessness, chaos. Then combine this with a warped idea of what evolution is (that it's to improve species) and this gets magnified. Thus they feel there must be an evolutionary answer to why there are grandparents, does being gay have an evolutionary reason, and so on. Social scientists drag in evolution to try and make sense of the chaos of society too. The news media spreads around all this stuff like it's valid. Lots of things are random, evolution can create side effects that are harmful, mutations stick around, a very wide bell curve of variations remains, and so on. So here, there's a perfectly normal rational reason for why these genes are activated after death, but still there's "maybe there's a reason for it" shows up again.
This is anthopomorphizing of evolution, like it has a motivation or goal. Another good word for it is "Panglossian", as described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
"Spandrels" are an architecture feature have little functional or structural use, they exist as a by-product of the primary architectural structures. In Biology the same concept exists. A particular evolutionary advantage may have by products and side effects. Male nipples being an example, no real need for them, they only exist because of shared processes during fetal development. A gene does not do one and only one thing. Biological creatures are chaotic systems; turn on a simple protein here and all sorts of changes happen all over the creature. Panglossian Paradigm is to instead assume all these by products were due to evolutionary advantages rather than just being spandrels, or that if there were no advantage to male nipples that they'd have evolved away.
One MP in favor the the Brexit was asked why he believed X for a particular issue when the experts said Y, and his answer was along the lines of "we're sick and tired of experts". It's the attitude of voting with your guts rather than your brains, a populist attitude that you see that in the Brexit campaign as well as the Trump campaign.
I thought we were an autonomous collective?
Erp, fix that first line. "Larger percentage of young people" I meant. Where's that editing feature?
Well, BBC poll results to indicate that poll turnout was lowest in areas with larger precentage of poll numbers, though the map is not very convincing (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028). Otherwise I can't find anything about percentage of younger people who voted.
Past numbers for 2010 showed a 51.8% turnout for 18-24 year olds versus 65% overall turnout rate. So it's indeed a lower turnout, however is that large enough to have made a difference? How many votes would you get from 13% more 18-24 year olds? Enough to change the final results?
I don't like to blame people for being the "cause" of an election results. Too much blame gets passed around every election, people need to start pointing the fingers at themselves instead of others. You don't encourage young people to go to the polls more often by accusing them of being the reason why things have gone wrong, instead you encourage them by letting them know their vote isn't wasted, that they're a part of the system, that voting is important. Ie, give a positive message (encouragement) rather than a negative message (blame).
I always felt that streaming was less efficient and convenient than the DVR model. A mix of the two would solve a lot of problems. But there are just so many streaming adopters who insist that bandwidth is plentiful and reliable that they don't understand the need for anything else. Streaming really only works today because a majority of video watchers are not using streaming. In the US we have a very large percentage of internet subscriber that can't download a two hour movie in two hours or less.
For instance, if everyone in the country decides to stream at the same time from 7:00pm to 10pm, prime time, then that's a huge hit in bandwidth for every ISP (many of which can not handle that much traffic). But then 3 hours later the internet is relatively idle because most people are asleep. It's just practical sense to download during off-peak hours and then watch whenever you want. Helps too if lots of people are downloading the same thing because then you can cache it on a local server, use multicast for a neighborhood, things like that. The content distributors save a lot of internet costs this way too
It reminds me of the early adopters of cable internet. They had extremely high bandwidth as they were the only persons in the neighborhood using the service, and they were extremely happy about it. A few years later and all their neighbors are using cable internet, shared on the same cable, and the early adopters are whining about how bad the service has degraded and insist that the cable companies must give the the same service they originally had (at the same price too).
The question from me is, what happens when Netflix loses the rights to the movie, which happens every few months when a lot of existing selections vanish and new ones show up? Are the downloaded movies no longer playable?
It also had the gigabit ethernet and HDMI/displayport. No usb 3.0 on my mac so the hub helps with that too. I know USB does audio but I've rarely seen any adapters for that, so having it on the hub was handy though not necessary at work. So one cable, as opposed to usb cable plus ethernet adapter plus video cable.
This is standard procedure, and not just from Comcast. Basically deny, deny, deny, and deny again any refunds or lower rates. Then when (and if) the story is discovered by the news immediately clear up all the red tape and apologize for a simple mix-up.
Of course, if the reverse happens, the companies would have someone come by and arrest you for theft.
I sort of wanted one at work. I have a Thunderbolt (2.0) hub, that has thunderbolt in, with thunderbolt, gigabit ethernet, usb 3.0, audio, mini display port, and hdmi out. The hope was that one cable was all I would need to plug in whenever I dock my laptop at work, which has two monitors. Turns out that the only way to get two monitors with fed from one thunderbolt cable is if one monitor takes thunderbolt directly. So while one thunderbolt cable can do one 4K monitor, it can't do two 1920 monitors. Oh well, at least it's only two cables I have to plug in.
It's ok kids, the bad robot can't get to us. We just waxed the floor.
This is a headphone jack. It's not going to fry your phone unless there's a voltage source at the other end of the jack. Even a really cheap and technically incompetent designer of the headphone isn't going to screw it up. If I have a $3 headphone jack that works with other phones, works with my tape player, my cd player, works with my laptop, then it should work on the iphone. This is not like a cheap ass USB-C cable that can damage your phone (which by the way you can still buy despite the MFI program).
Their reasoning is that become some cheap ass companies still manage to sell products even without Apple's approval that they will guarantee that no one will be able to use those products. This isn't actually their reason, it's just the reasoning they use to convince their fans that they're being above board, their real reason is that they want to shrink the phone even more and get some kickback from dongle sales.
Yes, Apple is a high price brand, but the other phone makers will see that no one complains about this change and start doing similar stuff themselves.
Hmm, is that username taken?
I'm going to watch the debates and then ask, "which is Dumb and which is Dumber?", I can't tell them apart.
Yes, the organization that in recent decades has gained a very strong conservative bias and moved it's primary focus away from gun safety and towards gun rights lobbying. Are you trying to imply that they're centrist?
The point is that Sony gets punished for these shenanigans. A better resolution than Sony sitting back and thinking they can do whatever they want with those suckers who buy their products.
I think that rights are artificial constructs by people rather than being a sort of transcendant thing imbued at birth (or conception). At the time of the constitution everyone was very religious, so it was easier to just assume that a deity granted these rights and thus the debate was over on that matter, time then to turn to which of the many rights were divinely granted and which ones weren't. The idea of natural rights came about during the age of enlightmenment as people were moving away from rights being given by divinely appointed monarchs and needing something to hang their rights upon to give them legitimacy. Which is why you still hear people referring to "god given rights" as they're being given a sacred importance.
That's not to say that I reject the idea of rights. I love my rights, I want to keep them, and to do so I must rely on other humans assist me with this. However I don't really accept the metaphysical notion of natural rights. Natural rights are thing of philosophy and not science. What we have is that we've moved away from the idea that rights are handed down by the rulers which can change as you move around the world and to a notion that most societies across the world believes that certain rights should be protected for all humans (which is much more advanced thinking that that of the founding fathers).
Mostly what I reject is the idea that someone will defend their viewpoints by declaring something a "natural right" as if that is supposed to resolve things. It's an appeal to authority to end the debate.
What's an innate right, how is it defined and distinct from non-innate rights? Were the first humans born with it and only after many millenia were they finally recognized? This innate business is straying too close to a sort of religious concept of rights, something granted by a deity perhaps. If some rights are innate then why do different societies recognize different rights as the ones that are innate? America is really really big on individualism and our notion of rights is colored greatly by that, but in other countries where individualism is not very important you see that society with a very different view of rights.
Consider the native residents of the Americas. They had a very loose notion of private property. But the invading Europeans thought that private property was a fundamental right, and so began a displacement of one society by a different society. So today you have people who will defend vigorously the notion that they have an innate property right to something that was originally taken by force.
This is why I liked the concept in Eiffel. Basically pepper your code with lots of easy to use pre-condititions and post-conditions and develop that way, but in production you can disable those checks so that you don't have abysmal performance. Of course you need training for this, you can't just plop down any old Java programmer and have them do it right. I see code today where people just toss in asserts left and right for things that could be easily handled, so you end up with customers having regular crashes because some developer didn't think that an unexpected type of packet would show up.
Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate. You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have. We have more rights today because we have a more organized system of government compared to those given by warlords and conquerors in the past. These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed. They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
How likely are the staff to ensure no one accidentally throws away the box when they're done?
News report: Someone in government is a kook. Details at 11.
They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons. All civil rights will remain intact. We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance and neither is freedom of religious activity. So having reasonable checks on gun ownership can be allowed without it being a removal of a civil right.
That's because there was not a large regular militia or large standing army. The duty of the militia was to essentially be draftees as necessary. This is completely opposite to the wing nut notion that the right to bear arms is necessary so that the government can be overthrown. Today we have a standing professional army. The need for reserve militias no longer remains. Red Dawn not withstanding, in the event of an invasion there will be enough people who have passed background checks who own guns to bolster the regular militia because no on in government is calling for a complete and total ban on private gun ownership.