My dog runs 200 times to fetch a stick I throw, my cat gives me the 'fuck you' look the very first time and goes for a nap.
Yeah? My cats will chase a laser pointer without even getting a "good boy" in return. At least the dog will chase the stick for a verbal reward. The cat will chase a laser pointer for *no* reward.
they can't be trained because they're rather stupid
How well can you be trained ? Would you be able to obey simple commands such as sitting on the ground, or fetching a ball, in return for being told you're such a good boy ?
Ever seen people play sports? You're disproving your own point here.
...but cannot do their business on their own in a designated spot (cats can do that) and are inept to spend a few days alone (no problem with cats). I have come across many dumb dogs that bark constantly for no reason, but at least as many clever cats. More cells does not make one smarter.
Dogs are smarter than cats, as demonstrated by repeated studies that involve solving puzzles to get a treat. I've both cats and dogs, and comparing the instinct of one (cats using only loose sand for a toilet) with the problem-solving ability of the other (search and rescue, herding sheep) is silly.
I do not think there are any studies demonstrating cats solving a problem that dogs cannot, while there are hundreds demonstrating dogs solving problems that cats are unable to solve.
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because she just wanted him away.
We are not privy to the subtlety and nuance of the situation, so it's unreasonable to assume it is one thing or the other. After a healthy dose of PR and an anonymous complaint, it's impossible to determine what really happened.
We know what he says, because he said it to the press. We don't know if she claimed unwanted advances because we don't know what she said, or even if she said anything. At this point it is safe to assume that they had a sexual relationship, because that's all we were told.
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either:
-She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making
-It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
I highly doubt that she reported him for unwanted advances while he says they had a consensual relationship. If the advances were indeed unwanted why would she then proceed to sex? If she proceeded to the sexual stage under duress/force/threats then it's most certainly a criminal offence and the cops have to be involved.
There is no explanation that can support a "not a consensual relationship that ended badly"; any explanation (unwanted advances, assault) fails under even a cursory examination.
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
One of those options is more likely than the other, because if it wasn't a mutual relationship then it was an assault (or a series of them), and that makes it a crime that Google's HR would have had to report to the nearest police station; they don't get the option of investigating internally instead of calling the cops.
As of writing no crime has been reported, ergo it was a mutual relationship.
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
I'm battling to understand what your point is. Don't get me wrong - I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know what point you were trying to make with that snippet because to me it it is so neutral that I cannot tell if you are *for* NK having nukes, *against* NK having nukes, or ambivalent about NK having nukes.
Wow. Slashdot seriously canâ(TM)t handle posting from a phone?! It totally mangled my apostrophes.
Your phone mangled your post. Slashdot merely displayed it. There is only one brand that cannot post properly to slashdot, all the other phones have no problems at all.
So you're fucking a doll, while your wife is around?
I presume you are not married, and never had a GF. Otherwise you would know that "around" is not the same as "available".
I am married. I was previously married as well. I've not yet had a wife that was around and not available, other than the five days each month during menstruation.
You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
Yep. I'll just pop out to the hardware store and buy the materials to build a second Internet from the ground up. That sounds feasible.
There is only one issue, and you're dodging it: Should companies be forced to carry content they do not want to? Regardless of your pseudo-intellectual posturing, the answer to that question can never be "Well, it depends on whether I agree with the politics or not".
I'm tempted to ignore anyone who thinks any remotely modern use of "idiot" is a racist insult (thus helping justify my use of it)
It's derogatory when you (white person) start your response to me (black person) like that. You think all black people are stupid? WTF is wrong with you, you racist piece of white trash? When you address black people maybe you shouldn't start off by implying all black people are less intelligent.
Generally the people who complain about private censorship want to post hate speech.
Yeah, we aren't talking about the people who generally complain. We're talking about a single easy to understand idea: Do you want to force companies to carry messages regardless of whether the company wants to or not?
Because if your answer is "Well, it depends on whether the company carries messages I agree with", then you've basically admitting that you don't care whether or not something is moral or not, you care whether or not it agrees with your politics, in which case your argument can be dismissed.
Normal people aren't going to agree with "the end justifies the means' reasoning.
Their ideas can and have be proven objectively wrong. Repeatedly. The ideas aren't the problem. The people spouting absolute nonsense are.
Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically.
Secondly, if it is "objectively right" to force one set of companies to carry a message they do not want to carry, then it is objectively right to force other companies to do so as well.
If you agree to an action when it's done by $FOO but disagree with the same action when it is done by $BAR, you aren't anywhere close to holding the moral high-ground. You are, in fact, one of those people spouting absolute nonsense.
The public is already complaining that internet access is monopolistic, and now the company is stating it will take puntative action against a citizen. That's a fast way to get yourself regulated like a public utility, by the one guy who has the power to do it.
Also it is a ridiculous oversimplification to say that "if you don't like it, you are free to build your own platform." How feasible is it for every content provider to build their own infrastructure?
"Build your own" was a valid argument when Facebook, Google and Twitter decided to politicise their content. Why does it stop being valid now?
Love him, hate him or don't give a damn about him, Weev made some great points against the policy, the best one of which is: Many of the companies screaming the loudest are the biggest advocates of censorship. (Then there is the fact that as he rightly points out no one is stopping state and local monopolistic practices)
Of course they don't call it that. They pretend that it's some balance to protect civility, feelings and ensure that cowards are not driven to silence by hearing disagreement, but that is precisely what it is. Censorship.
And one of the greatest ironies of the whole issue is that the sort of people who love to throw this XKCD comic out there are the ones shitting themselves the hardest at the idea that ISPs might take their platform away, but when it is GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTube doing it we are invited to a lecture on how we are not entitled to a soapbox.
You need more upvotes. I cannot give it to you but I can reinforce the message:
The largest censors are fighting for this rule. On general principle alone they should be denied.
You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice,
statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any
preference,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
Well what do you propose? That we force facebook to remove targeted ads?
Anyone who spends their time worrying about their standing in the protected class Olympics is a fool and probably can't comprehend it.
If the ad said, "No gamers or Republicans", you'd shit on the floor in fury and call for a boycott.
It's funny, really: the ad doesn't say "No Demorats" or "No non-whites" and there is a storm of controversy, and yet you want to turn this around and tell us what the outcome will be if the ad was indeed discriminatory.
Neither. I honestly did not know which is why I said "I'm guessing" and "I'm pretty certain", instead of "I know" or "I'm certain". Poster elsethread posted a reference for the religion/housing thing.
The federally protected classes in the U.S. are, race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, genetic information, and citizenship.
States may ADD to that list, but they cannot remove anything from that list.
I'd like to see a reference for this. I don't see how "national origin" or "genetic information" can be protected classes.
The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy
How much energy ?
Enough for the net energy extracted from HFCS to be higher than the net energy extracted from sucrose. Even in the fractional percentages this adds up due to the volume of sugar/HFCS consumed.
The problem is that the glucose and fructose are entering the blood stream.
But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds
The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.
The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy, hence why there's more than a little difference in practice between eating HFCS and sucrose.
Slashdot Mirror
My dog runs 200 times to fetch a stick I throw, my cat gives me the 'fuck you' look the very first time and goes for a nap.
Yeah? My cats will chase a laser pointer without even getting a "good boy" in return. At least the dog will chase the stick for a verbal reward. The cat will chase a laser pointer for *no* reward.
There. See how stupid that argument is?
they can't be trained because they're rather stupid
How well can you be trained ? Would you be able to obey simple commands such as sitting on the ground, or fetching a ball, in return for being told you're such a good boy ?
Ever seen people play sports? You're disproving your own point here.
You can call them solitary. You can call them regal. You can call them comfort pets.
I call it dumb, and now science tends to confirm it,
What do you mean "now"? Studies going back to pre-WWII determined that dogs are higher on the intelligence scale than cats.
...but cannot do their business on their own in a designated spot (cats can do that) and are inept to spend a few days alone (no problem with cats). I have come across many dumb dogs that bark constantly for no reason, but at least as many clever cats. More cells does not make one smarter.
Dogs are smarter than cats, as demonstrated by repeated studies that involve solving puzzles to get a treat. I've both cats and dogs, and comparing the instinct of one (cats using only loose sand for a toilet) with the problem-solving ability of the other (search and rescue, herding sheep) is silly.
I do not think there are any studies demonstrating cats solving a problem that dogs cannot, while there are hundreds demonstrating dogs solving problems that cats are unable to solve.
why would she then proceed to sex?
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because she just wanted him away.
We are not privy to the subtlety and nuance of the situation, so it's unreasonable to assume it is one thing or the other. After a healthy dose of PR and an anonymous complaint, it's impossible to determine what really happened.
We know what he says, because he said it to the press. We don't know if she claimed unwanted advances because we don't know what she said, or even if she said anything. At this point it is safe to assume that they had a sexual relationship, because that's all we were told.
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either: -She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making -It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
I highly doubt that she reported him for unwanted advances while he says they had a consensual relationship. If the advances were indeed unwanted why would she then proceed to sex? If she proceeded to the sexual stage under duress/force/threats then it's most certainly a criminal offence and the cops have to be involved.
There is no explanation that can support a "not a consensual relationship that ended badly"; any explanation (unwanted advances, assault) fails under even a cursory examination.
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
One of those options is more likely than the other, because if it wasn't a mutual relationship then it was an assault (or a series of them), and that makes it a crime that Google's HR would have had to report to the nearest police station; they don't get the option of investigating internally instead of calling the cops.
As of writing no crime has been reported, ergo it was a mutual relationship.
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
1950s to 1960s: Early Developments
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
I'm battling to understand what your point is. Don't get me wrong - I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know what point you were trying to make with that snippet because to me it it is so neutral that I cannot tell if you are *for* NK having nukes, *against* NK having nukes, or ambivalent about NK having nukes.
Wow. Slashdot seriously canâ(TM)t handle posting from a phone?! It totally mangled my apostrophes.
Your phone mangled your post. Slashdot merely displayed it. There is only one brand that cannot post properly to slashdot, all the other phones have no problems at all.
So you're fucking a doll, while your wife is around?
I presume you are not married, and never had a GF. Otherwise you would know that "around" is not the same as "available".
I am married. I was previously married as well. I've not yet had a wife that was around and not available, other than the five days each month during menstruation.
I can handle five days a month without sex.
You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
Yep. I'll just pop out to the hardware store and buy the materials to build a second Internet from the ground up. That sounds feasible.
There is only one issue, and you're dodging it: Should companies be forced to carry content they do not want to? Regardless of your pseudo-intellectual posturing, the answer to that question can never be "Well, it depends on whether I agree with the politics or not".
I'm tempted to ignore anyone who thinks any remotely modern use of "idiot" is a racist insult (thus helping justify my use of it)
It's derogatory when you (white person) start your response to me (black person) like that. You think all black people are stupid? WTF is wrong with you, you racist piece of white trash? When you address black people maybe you shouldn't start off by implying all black people are less intelligent.
Generally the people who complain about private censorship want to post hate speech.
Yeah, we aren't talking about the people who generally complain. We're talking about a single easy to understand idea: Do you want to force companies to carry messages regardless of whether the company wants to or not?
Because if your answer is "Well, it depends on whether the company carries messages I agree with", then you've basically admitting that you don't care whether or not something is moral or not, you care whether or not it agrees with your politics, in which case your argument can be dismissed.
Normal people aren't going to agree with "the end justifies the means' reasoning.
LOL idiot,
Nice - starting off with a racist insult.
you think that if there's no net neutrality, it'll be easier to post hate speech on the web?
So, lemme get this straight - I point out that "no one is obliged to give you a platform" and you take that to mean I want to post hate speech?
Their ideas can and have be proven objectively wrong. Repeatedly. The ideas aren't the problem. The people spouting absolute nonsense are.
Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically.
Secondly, if it is "objectively right" to force one set of companies to carry a message they do not want to carry, then it is objectively right to force other companies to do so as well.
If you agree to an action when it's done by $FOO but disagree with the same action when it is done by $BAR, you aren't anywhere close to holding the moral high-ground. You are, in fact, one of those people spouting absolute nonsense.
The public is already complaining that internet access is monopolistic, and now the company is stating it will take puntative action against a citizen. That's a fast way to get yourself regulated like a public utility, by the one guy who has the power to do it.
Parent needs to be upvoted.
Also it is a ridiculous oversimplification to say that "if you don't like it, you are free to build your own platform." How feasible is it for every content provider to build their own infrastructure?
"Build your own" was a valid argument when Facebook, Google and Twitter decided to politicise their content. Why does it stop being valid now?
If you think NN is about censorship, you're looking at the wrong issue.
It's about charging for preferential treatment on what should be public infrastructure.
"Should" and "Is" are two different things. If it's not public infrastructure it doesn't owe your company access.
So my fellow peasants, bend over, take it and like it because profits Rule and People drool!
The richest companies are fighting for net neutrality.
Love him, hate him or don't give a damn about him, Weev made some great points against the policy, the best one of which is: Many of the companies screaming the loudest are the biggest advocates of censorship. (Then there is the fact that as he rightly points out no one is stopping state and local monopolistic practices)
Of course they don't call it that. They pretend that it's some balance to protect civility, feelings and ensure that cowards are not driven to silence by hearing disagreement, but that is precisely what it is. Censorship.
And one of the greatest ironies of the whole issue is that the sort of people who love to throw this XKCD comic out there are the ones shitting themselves the hardest at the idea that ISPs might take their platform away, but when it is GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTube doing it we are invited to a lecture on how we are not entitled to a soapbox.
You need more upvotes. I cannot give it to you but I can reinforce the message:
The largest censors are fighting for this rule. On general principle alone they should be denied.
You are free to speak, no one is forced to give you a platform. You are free to build your own platform.
Read the whole thing:
makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
Well what do you propose? That we force facebook to remove targeted ads?
If the ad said, "No gamers or Republicans", you'd shit on the floor in fury and call for a boycott.
It's funny, really: the ad doesn't say "No Demorats" or "No non-whites" and there is a storm of controversy, and yet you want to turn this around and tell us what the outcome will be if the ad was indeed discriminatory.
You're an idiot.
I really hope you're kidding or being sarcastic.
Neither. I honestly did not know which is why I said "I'm guessing" and "I'm pretty certain", instead of "I know" or "I'm certain". Poster elsethread posted a reference for the religion/housing thing.
The federally protected classes in the U.S. are, race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, genetic information, and citizenship.
States may ADD to that list, but they cannot remove anything from that list.
I'd like to see a reference for this. I don't see how "national origin" or "genetic information" can be protected classes.
How is this even legal?
Is Zuckerborg from Mississippi or something?
I'm guessing the religion one might be legal - I'm pretty certain you can discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.
The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy
How much energy ?
Enough for the net energy extracted from HFCS to be higher than the net energy extracted from sucrose. Even in the fractional percentages this adds up due to the volume of sugar/HFCS consumed.
The problem is that the glucose and fructose are entering the blood stream.
True.
But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds
The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.
The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy, hence why there's more than a little difference in practice between eating HFCS and sucrose.