I don't get why people want to defend someone like Bannon, unless they also are misogynists and racists. And if they are, why don't they just say so rather than trying to claim he's not?
His paper says other things they like besides the racism. If things like racism don't affect you directly (family, friends, neighbors, etc), it can be really really easy to ignore it when somebody says a whole bunch of other things that you do like.
Most people aren't actively racist. A lot of people are what I would call passively racist. You could call them "neutral" with regards to race, but since we as humans have a natural tendency to be suspicious of the unfamiliar, I think passively racist is much more appropriate.
Rather than any sort of hate or dislike, it's more about the fact that a person doesn't look or act the way you're used to, so you're immediately uncomfortable and suspicious. We're hard wired to behave this way. On top of this, roughly 2/3 of America is non-hispanic white, which means it's not hard for those white people to simply not get much exposure to non-white culture. Meanwhile, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc. are immersed in white culture, and it's harder for them to insulate.
So everywhere they go, minorities meet white people who treat them with suspicion for no good reason (other than the default evolutionary reasons). It's a whole different life experience, and I have a hard time even imagining what that's like, because I'm white, and I don't experience anything like it in my day to day life.
My point is that it's easy to ignore active racism when you yourself are passively racist, and it's really hard not to be passively racist. It's something that you have to work at, primarily by exposing yourself to different cultures and becoming acquainted with people who are very different from the people you know.
For some people that simply isn't an option, but most people could do this, but have no real incentive to. It's these people who find it easy ignore blatantly racist remarks in favor of some statement that relates to things that actually concern them, which is what Trump and Breitbart are all about.
70% of the landmass may be in Asia, but something like 80% of its population is in Europe. That's why it's a European country and not an Asian country. If most Russians lived in Siberia, it would probably be considered an Asian country.
Ultimately, I voted for Trump because he can't do WORSE than Obama or Hilary. He might do a terrible job, but he can't do worse, and to my knowledge, he's not a happy criminal whose family has anyone who airs their laundry killed.
The reason it's called Dark Matter is because of gravity. Matter is the only thing we know to have gravity, so if there's extra gravity there is (probably) extra matter. Relativity works so perfectly for everything else that the odds of the theory being the problem are very low.
Still, that doesn't mean "Dark Matter" actually matter, it's just a placeholder for this unknown mass of gravity that surrounds every galaxy in the universe. Matter is simply the most likely explanation, so that's what they called it.
One thing to bear in mind is that, like any good theory that aims to supplant an existing well-working theory, Verlinde's theory basically matches Relativity 1 for 1 until you get to the galactic scale.
This is just like the way Relativity matches Newtonian Gravity 1 for 1 until you start to get to the inter-planetary scale, after which Relativistic affects can be easily observed.
Noticing the differences between the theory of Relativity and Verlinde's theory at the inter-planetary scale should take precise equipment akin to that used to notice Relativistic effects on earth.
So it's not likely that we will discover that things that were thought impossible under Relativity are actually possible if gravity is an emergent phenomena. Most likely all the same restrictions will apply, but other avenues that have never been considered will open up to us.
Willful ignorance is not a defense. Facebook COULD know if those ads were discriminatory or not, but choose not to. In similar situations, the courts find that they are just as liable as if they DID know.
That's why YouTube responds to DMCA take-downs the way it does - because it is feasible that they react immediately, they are required to react immediately. Because it is possible for them to detect potentially infringing material and remove it, they are required to detect infringing material and remove it, etc.
Because Facebook is the one that actually did the restricting of who could and couldn't see the ads, and so are complicit.
Think of it like going to an ad agency and saying "Hey, I want to put this ad up for this place I'm renting, but I don't want brown people to see it."
The ad agency would tell you to go pound sand, because they'd be complicit in violating the law if they ran an ad campaign like that.
Facebook is the ad agency here, and they failed to tell the racist to go pound sand.
It's very similar to the way YouTube is held liable if they don't respond to DMCA take-down notices. They are facilitating the content, and so are held liable for the offense if they don't respond in a timely manner.
Ridiculous. You hate people who hate Indians. Ergo, there are definitely situations where it is acceptable to hate.
I have no idea how you got that from "It's not ok to hate anybody". You know just because you don't hate one person doesn't mean you have to hate another person, right?
You are advocating for total nihilism.
Do you even know what that is? I don't think you do, because the OP said absolutely nothing that even relates to nihilism.
And the situation here is the same as it has always been. The vast majority of robberies of cab drivers are black men. The vast majority of cab drivers, including black men who are cab drivers, do not pick up black men because it is in their mind not worth the risk.
So? I have no idea if that is true, I have serious doubts considering I have black friends who don't complain about not being able to get cabs, and I know I personally have never been asked what race I was when I called a cab to come pick me up, but still, what does that have to do with hating anybody? Are you seriously saying black men hate black men?
The reason this particular issue never gets more traction is relatively few cab drivers are white these days, and since only white people can be racist, the issue blows up once people like you realize it is non-white people discriminating against black people.
Really, the solution needs to be figuring out how to make black men less likely to commit crimes. How do you do that? I haven't got a clue. But no one is going to stop discriminating unless they are rich in lily white suburbs isolated from the realities of the world around them.
You're not special. You're one of a hundred million internet keyboard warriors typing such drivel makes them a good person.
The racism in this particular paragraph is just astounding. I don't even know where to start. I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
Only if you also install a mechanism that covers the add whenever a minority walks up and tries to read it.
You don't need to go out of your way to be sure minorities can see your advertisement, you just have to be sure you aren't specifically preventing them from seeing your advertisement. A public posting around a neighborhood (and pretty much any public notice of that nature) doesn't prevent anyone from coming up and looking at it, so it's totally fine.
Anybody who knows anything about handling classified information (which I only know a tiny bit about and still know this) knows that Clinton's official email address would most certainly NOT be secure, because it is not on the secure network specifically designed for transferring secret information.
They have a special network specifically for sending secure emails. If you are sending classified information to someone outside this network via email, there's a pretty good chance you're breaking the law.
How could the list only drop to 500k, when Clinton only ever sent 80k emails as Secretary of State?
The absolute largest the pool of emails could be is 33k. These are the emails that Clinton sent, but deleted because they were personal, and so the FBI does not have them.
Do you seriously think 100% of the emails Clinton claims were personal were sent to/from Anthony Weiner? Really? Have you ever used email before in your life?
I would be shocked if the actual number of emails between Clinton and Weiner was more than a few hundred, and I feel like that's being pretty generous. That's a pretty easy list for 400 FBI agents to look through.
Anthony Weiner had 650k emails. The FBI has not said how many emails were sent to or from Clinton while she was S of S, but it seems pretty unreasonable to me to think it was anything other than a very small fraction of those emails.
Do you seriously believe Weiner only ever sent email to Hillary Clinton? Really?
If you actually believe that all 650,000 emails related to Clinton, you are simply too stupid to follow this topic, and should seriously consider stopping.
There isn't anything specific she could be prosecuted for, that's why the FBI recommended no prosecution.
There are, however, a whole bunch of bad practices that she was guilty of, which could certainly for some updated laws on the subject in the future.
The truth is, however, as only the second Secretary of State to even use email she was working in relatively unknown territory. The State Department's email system itself was apparently awful to work with and insecure to boot, and she was in a position to exclude herself from it.
A better path would have been to use her position to fix the problems with the S.D.'s email system, but then again that was not really her job. It's understandable that she just wanted her immediate problem fixed.
Actually there is an entirely separate "email" system for sending classified information. It basically runs on a segregated intranet that the government owns and secures from end to end. If they thought sending secure mail to Clinton's public state department email address was secure then they are fucking morons who deserve to have the book thrown at them.
From what I've read about the email scandal, all of the classified emails found were either classified retroactively, in which case they weren't classified when they were originally sent/received, or it was unclear whether they should be marked classified or not, and it was ultimately determined that they should be.
I may be wrong, and I'll freely admit to my personal lack of perfect knowledge, but I haven't seen any examples of any email that was sent by Clinton when she knew the information in the email should be classified.
There are plenty of arguments that Clinton handled her email poorly, but the fact that it was on a private server has nothing to do with it. In fact, Clinton's setup was arguably more secure than Powel's setup, who used a private third party entity to manage all of his emails. No other secretary of state even used email, so it's hard to compare apples to apples here.
He's seriously off the rails here, but I can sort of see why he felt the need to pipe up and say something. In hindsight it was obviously the wrong choice, and chances are he won't be in the post long regardless of who wins (definitely if Clinton wins, he's got Hatch Act written all over him).
But even without hindsight, it seems a pretty dumb thing to do considering it expressly went against existing policy. If he follows policy and the emails turn out to be nothing, then no harm, no foul. If he follows policy and the emails turn out to be a thing, well, now he can say "sorry, I was following policy". But what he did put himself squarely in the firing line for no good reason.
I was following along nicely until the "alliterate" exchange. All I can say is either the joke is going way over my head, or you're just confused as hell, because I see exactly zero alliteration going on here.
English is India's primary language. The only "textbook" education they get to speak it is the same that Americans and British students get: proper grammar and sentence structure, vocabulary and spelling, etc. They all learn to speak English as children because that's what everyone speaks over there.
Hell, my English professor in college was Indian.
The only difference between their English and ours are the accent (which is something fierce), and colloquialisms and slang and such.
No, it was not the first full-fledged implementation of the RFCs. It was simply the first electronic mail system to use the specific term "Email". That's it. That's his entire claim.
The RFCs were a reflection of the programs in use, not the other way around.
Ayyandurai has a reasonable claim that he coined the term "Email" (even though there was a newsletter out by then that used the term "electronic mail"), and by creating an office email system at age 14, he also has a reasonable claim to being a pretty awesome programmer, at least at that time.
However, he obviously did not invent any of the underlying protocols or systems that became known as Email.
Just like the guy who coined the term "dinosaur" wasn't the first guy to dig up a dinosaur bone, Ayyandurai did not invent email just because he was the first person to name his program "email".
Android isn't the product Google sells. Google search isn't the product. Gmail, Youtube, and all the other services Google provides are not the products that Google sells.
YOU are the product Google sells. The reason Google search is so awesome is so that YOU will use it, and Google can then sell your viewing of their page to advertisers. Same with Android, Youtube, Gmail, Drive, all of it.
The happier Google can keep its product, and the more Google knows about its product, the more they can charge for their product to their customers: other businesses.
Now, that sounds like a horrifying twist from a cyber themed James Bond villain, but frankly, I remember the internet in the 90's. I'm totally OK with Google's business model.
The gist of it is, Google virtually single-handedly fixed the Internet in the 90's, and as a result of that their Internet Pie is deservedly huge. Microsoft and Apple are pissed off because they have yet to figure out a way to provide a service to Google's customers as well as Google does, and so they have failed to snatch more than a tiny piece of Google's Internet Pie.
Frankly, unless there is evidence of Google actually rigging their services to steer traffic away from MS or Apple beyond simply providing a better product, then I think the EU should go pound sand. Now, if they do find actual evidence of Google behaving badly (and not just "oh you're too popular, you need to be less popular so we can compete too") then by all means, fine the hell out of them.
Google's business model is built on trust between themselves and their product, though, so I would be really surprised if they were actually rigging their search results.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get why people want to defend someone like Bannon, unless they also are misogynists and racists. And if they are, why don't they just say so rather than trying to claim he's not?
His paper says other things they like besides the racism. If things like racism don't affect you directly (family, friends, neighbors, etc), it can be really really easy to ignore it when somebody says a whole bunch of other things that you do like.
Most people aren't actively racist. A lot of people are what I would call passively racist. You could call them "neutral" with regards to race, but since we as humans have a natural tendency to be suspicious of the unfamiliar, I think passively racist is much more appropriate.
Rather than any sort of hate or dislike, it's more about the fact that a person doesn't look or act the way you're used to, so you're immediately uncomfortable and suspicious. We're hard wired to behave this way. On top of this, roughly 2/3 of America is non-hispanic white, which means it's not hard for those white people to simply not get much exposure to non-white culture. Meanwhile, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc. are immersed in white culture, and it's harder for them to insulate.
So everywhere they go, minorities meet white people who treat them with suspicion for no good reason (other than the default evolutionary reasons). It's a whole different life experience, and I have a hard time even imagining what that's like, because I'm white, and I don't experience anything like it in my day to day life.
My point is that it's easy to ignore active racism when you yourself are passively racist, and it's really hard not to be passively racist. It's something that you have to work at, primarily by exposing yourself to different cultures and becoming acquainted with people who are very different from the people you know.
For some people that simply isn't an option, but most people could do this, but have no real incentive to. It's these people who find it easy ignore blatantly racist remarks in favor of some statement that relates to things that actually concern them, which is what Trump and Breitbart are all about.
For no reason except they are from that region? The fact that they come here and become citizens is meaningless to you?
That's pretty much textbook racism.
70% of the landmass may be in Asia, but something like 80% of its population is in Europe. That's why it's a European country and not an Asian country. If most Russians lived in Siberia, it would probably be considered an Asian country.
Ultimately, I voted for Trump because he can't do WORSE than Obama or Hilary. He might do a terrible job, but he can't do worse, and to my knowledge, he's not a happy criminal whose family has anyone who airs their laundry killed.
I think you're seriously underestimating Trump.
The reason it's called Dark Matter is because of gravity. Matter is the only thing we know to have gravity, so if there's extra gravity there is (probably) extra matter. Relativity works so perfectly for everything else that the odds of the theory being the problem are very low.
Still, that doesn't mean "Dark Matter" actually matter, it's just a placeholder for this unknown mass of gravity that surrounds every galaxy in the universe. Matter is simply the most likely explanation, so that's what they called it.
One thing to bear in mind is that, like any good theory that aims to supplant an existing well-working theory, Verlinde's theory basically matches Relativity 1 for 1 until you get to the galactic scale.
This is just like the way Relativity matches Newtonian Gravity 1 for 1 until you start to get to the inter-planetary scale, after which Relativistic affects can be easily observed.
Noticing the differences between the theory of Relativity and Verlinde's theory at the inter-planetary scale should take precise equipment akin to that used to notice Relativistic effects on earth.
So it's not likely that we will discover that things that were thought impossible under Relativity are actually possible if gravity is an emergent phenomena. Most likely all the same restrictions will apply, but other avenues that have never been considered will open up to us.
That's not how similar tech cases have gone down.
Willful ignorance is not a defense. Facebook COULD know if those ads were discriminatory or not, but choose not to. In similar situations, the courts find that they are just as liable as if they DID know.
That's why YouTube responds to DMCA take-downs the way it does - because it is feasible that they react immediately, they are required to react immediately. Because it is possible for them to detect potentially infringing material and remove it, they are required to detect infringing material and remove it, etc.
Because Facebook is the one that actually did the restricting of who could and couldn't see the ads, and so are complicit.
Think of it like going to an ad agency and saying "Hey, I want to put this ad up for this place I'm renting, but I don't want brown people to see it."
The ad agency would tell you to go pound sand, because they'd be complicit in violating the law if they ran an ad campaign like that.
Facebook is the ad agency here, and they failed to tell the racist to go pound sand.
It's very similar to the way YouTube is held liable if they don't respond to DMCA take-down notices. They are facilitating the content, and so are held liable for the offense if they don't respond in a timely manner.
Targeting is fine, and totally legal. Military discounts, elderly discounts, child discounts, etc. That's all fine.
What's not fine are things like male discounts, white discounts, straight discounts, hispanic discounts, black discounts, see the difference?
Ridiculous. You hate people who hate Indians. Ergo, there are definitely situations where it is acceptable to hate.
I have no idea how you got that from "It's not ok to hate anybody". You know just because you don't hate one person doesn't mean you have to hate another person, right?
You are advocating for total nihilism.
Do you even know what that is? I don't think you do, because the OP said absolutely nothing that even relates to nihilism.
And the situation here is the same as it has always been. The vast majority of robberies of cab drivers are black men. The vast majority of cab drivers, including black men who are cab drivers, do not pick up black men because it is in their mind not worth the risk.
So? I have no idea if that is true, I have serious doubts considering I have black friends who don't complain about not being able to get cabs, and I know I personally have never been asked what race I was when I called a cab to come pick me up, but still, what does that have to do with hating anybody? Are you seriously saying black men hate black men?
The reason this particular issue never gets more traction is relatively few cab drivers are white these days, and since only white people can be racist, the issue blows up once people like you realize it is non-white people discriminating against black people.
Really, the solution needs to be figuring out how to make black men less likely to commit crimes. How do you do that? I haven't got a clue. But no one is going to stop discriminating unless they are rich in lily white suburbs isolated from the realities of the world around them.
You're not special. You're one of a hundred million internet keyboard warriors typing such drivel makes them a good person.
The racism in this particular paragraph is just astounding. I don't even know where to start. I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
Only if you also install a mechanism that covers the add whenever a minority walks up and tries to read it.
You don't need to go out of your way to be sure minorities can see your advertisement, you just have to be sure you aren't specifically preventing them from seeing your advertisement. A public posting around a neighborhood (and pretty much any public notice of that nature) doesn't prevent anyone from coming up and looking at it, so it's totally fine.
Anybody who knows anything about handling classified information (which I only know a tiny bit about and still know this) knows that Clinton's official email address would most certainly NOT be secure, because it is not on the secure network specifically designed for transferring secret information.
They have a special network specifically for sending secure emails. If you are sending classified information to someone outside this network via email, there's a pretty good chance you're breaking the law.
How could the list only drop to 500k, when Clinton only ever sent 80k emails as Secretary of State?
The absolute largest the pool of emails could be is 33k. These are the emails that Clinton sent, but deleted because they were personal, and so the FBI does not have them.
Do you seriously think 100% of the emails Clinton claims were personal were sent to/from Anthony Weiner? Really? Have you ever used email before in your life?
I would be shocked if the actual number of emails between Clinton and Weiner was more than a few hundred, and I feel like that's being pretty generous. That's a pretty easy list for 400 FBI agents to look through.
Anthony Weiner had 650k emails. The FBI has not said how many emails were sent to or from Clinton while she was S of S, but it seems pretty unreasonable to me to think it was anything other than a very small fraction of those emails.
Do you seriously believe Weiner only ever sent email to Hillary Clinton? Really?
If you actually believe that all 650,000 emails related to Clinton, you are simply too stupid to follow this topic, and should seriously consider stopping.
There isn't anything specific she could be prosecuted for, that's why the FBI recommended no prosecution.
There are, however, a whole bunch of bad practices that she was guilty of, which could certainly for some updated laws on the subject in the future.
The truth is, however, as only the second Secretary of State to even use email she was working in relatively unknown territory. The State Department's email system itself was apparently awful to work with and insecure to boot, and she was in a position to exclude herself from it.
A better path would have been to use her position to fix the problems with the S.D.'s email system, but then again that was not really her job. It's understandable that she just wanted her immediate problem fixed.
Actually there is an entirely separate "email" system for sending classified information. It basically runs on a segregated intranet that the government owns and secures from end to end. If they thought sending secure mail to Clinton's public state department email address was secure then they are fucking morons who deserve to have the book thrown at them.
From what I've read about the email scandal, all of the classified emails found were either classified retroactively, in which case they weren't classified when they were originally sent/received, or it was unclear whether they should be marked classified or not, and it was ultimately determined that they should be.
I may be wrong, and I'll freely admit to my personal lack of perfect knowledge, but I haven't seen any examples of any email that was sent by Clinton when she knew the information in the email should be classified.
There are plenty of arguments that Clinton handled her email poorly, but the fact that it was on a private server has nothing to do with it. In fact, Clinton's setup was arguably more secure than Powel's setup, who used a private third party entity to manage all of his emails. No other secretary of state even used email, so it's hard to compare apples to apples here.
He's seriously off the rails here, but I can sort of see why he felt the need to pipe up and say something. In hindsight it was obviously the wrong choice, and chances are he won't be in the post long regardless of who wins (definitely if Clinton wins, he's got Hatch Act written all over him).
But even without hindsight, it seems a pretty dumb thing to do considering it expressly went against existing policy. If he follows policy and the emails turn out to be nothing, then no harm, no foul. If he follows policy and the emails turn out to be a thing, well, now he can say "sorry, I was following policy". But what he did put himself squarely in the firing line for no good reason.
Actually people who wanted to ignore Comey last week are probably just saying "See? It wasn't anything!" this week.
Otherwise I'm with you all the way.
I was following along nicely until the "alliterate" exchange. All I can say is either the joke is going way over my head, or you're just confused as hell, because I see exactly zero alliteration going on here.
That might be the dumbest thing I've read today. You don't know what inflation is, do you?
English is India's primary language. The only "textbook" education they get to speak it is the same that Americans and British students get: proper grammar and sentence structure, vocabulary and spelling, etc. They all learn to speak English as children because that's what everyone speaks over there.
Hell, my English professor in college was Indian.
The only difference between their English and ours are the accent (which is something fierce), and colloquialisms and slang and such.
No, it was not the first full-fledged implementation of the RFCs. It was simply the first electronic mail system to use the specific term "Email". That's it. That's his entire claim.
The RFCs were a reflection of the programs in use, not the other way around.
Ayyandurai has a reasonable claim that he coined the term "Email" (even though there was a newsletter out by then that used the term "electronic mail"), and by creating an office email system at age 14, he also has a reasonable claim to being a pretty awesome programmer, at least at that time.
However, he obviously did not invent any of the underlying protocols or systems that became known as Email.
Just like the guy who coined the term "dinosaur" wasn't the first guy to dig up a dinosaur bone, Ayyandurai did not invent email just because he was the first person to name his program "email".
Shows what you know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(Credit to pushing-robot for that one)
The VoCore2 Lite is the $4 version, and won't be available to the masses until January. That's why it's not in the store.
You have to get in on the Indiegogo campaign to get it early:
https://www.indiegogo.com/proj...
You're only seeing part of the picture.
Android isn't the product Google sells. Google search isn't the product. Gmail, Youtube, and all the other services Google provides are not the products that Google sells.
YOU are the product Google sells. The reason Google search is so awesome is so that YOU will use it, and Google can then sell your viewing of their page to advertisers. Same with Android, Youtube, Gmail, Drive, all of it.
The happier Google can keep its product, and the more Google knows about its product, the more they can charge for their product to their customers: other businesses.
Now, that sounds like a horrifying twist from a cyber themed James Bond villain, but frankly, I remember the internet in the 90's. I'm totally OK with Google's business model.
The gist of it is, Google virtually single-handedly fixed the Internet in the 90's, and as a result of that their Internet Pie is deservedly huge. Microsoft and Apple are pissed off because they have yet to figure out a way to provide a service to Google's customers as well as Google does, and so they have failed to snatch more than a tiny piece of Google's Internet Pie.
Frankly, unless there is evidence of Google actually rigging their services to steer traffic away from MS or Apple beyond simply providing a better product, then I think the EU should go pound sand. Now, if they do find actual evidence of Google behaving badly (and not just "oh you're too popular, you need to be less popular so we can compete too") then by all means, fine the hell out of them.
Google's business model is built on trust between themselves and their product, though, so I would be really surprised if they were actually rigging their search results.