It would, in theory, make the pool of men they encounter to more likely be interested in non-sexual aspects of a relationship, reducing the effort needed to filter men who falsify their intentions in order to gain sex.
Yeah, but
a) It's a smaller pool, and
b) They lose the ability to pretend to be interested in sexual activities.
That second one is important - a woman who isn't interested in sex with a particular man will still want that man to hang around because of the benefits of having a doormat and a fallback option in case the man she is having sex with doesn't want to settle down with her. To do this, they pretend that intimacy is not out of the question for the second-choice-man.
Having prostitutes around means that the second-choice-man is not going to hang around in the hope he gets laid, he's simply going to get laid, which is why it's only ever women against prostitution.
And what are they supposed to do, go to the cops and say "This guy is trying to steal my prostitution business?"
No, they are supposed to go to the cops and say "this guy hit me for standing on the street". She is at no risk of getting arrested for saying that.
Once a prostitute is in the clutches of a pimp, she's not free to leave to business either.
Yes, she is. She can tell the cops "this guys wants me to be a prostitute".
Even if she wants to move to a different city, if the pimp keeps her in place by threats to her friends and family.
Once again, she has legal recourse if she doesn't want to be a prostitute.
And not every prostitute is a prostitute by choice. There are runaways who fall into a pimp's control; rural foreigners who are tricked into thinking they're immigrating to the US for a high-paying (by their standards) domestic service job.
Understand I have no issues with prostitution per se, but I have a big problem with slavery, and in any system where prostitutes operate outside the protection of the law it's a given that most of them are de facto slaves.
Yeah, I'm skeptical - I'd rather avoid the whole argument by making prostitution and solicitation legal. We pay for sex in kind anyway.
Social Scientists, when conducting research, are under a moral obligation to make sure that their participants are not under more than 'minimal risk' as a result of the research.
How is this different from other scientists? I remember writing motivation for the ethics review board for anything involving living creatures, plants excluded.
You mean the convenience of walking 200 meters in the cold rain through a parking lot to get to your car, while the SDC-Uber customers are picked up at the curb, under an awning?
That won't happen because it doesn't scale. 30 people can exit a building *and* clear out of the entrance at a rate of 1 person per second. 30 people getting into cars at the entrance is going to take roughly ten minutes.
I hope they never figure the self driving thing out.
Don't worry; it's not going to happen anytime soon. "Self-driving cars" is the new "3D printer" topic for slashdot regs to orgasm over. My prediction: based on how viable./ regulars think this is, it's never going to take off.
All the proponents of self-driving cars who feel that it is only 20 years off have forgotten when AI was "only 20 years away", and when flying cars were "only 20 years away", and when BTC was going to take over the world "in the next 3 years". The tech will be developed, but like flying cars and 3D printers and BTC, will remain attractive to a a very small group of techies.
You've got a long way to go before you consider a $2k laptop/4 years to be a bargain of any sort.
The D630 was insufficient even back in its day for the work that I do. Not all of us can get by with bargain-basement craptops.
Craptop? I drove over a work-supplied d630 and all that happened was the screen cracked and the HDD stopped working - replaced both and the thing still worked until the day I left. My previous post I actually meant to say "d830" (got it confused with the d630); the d830 is the one I'm still using, and that hardly counts as a "craptop", especially since my one has a quadro GPU and 1200px vertical resolution. You know - the things that matter to development?
Your laptop works for you - great - but it's far from being a bargain, especially considering the poor vertical resolution (900px? 800px? That's like programming through a letterbox)
Price != Value. I also spent a little over two grand on a 2012 MacBook Pro and it's still behaving quite nicely. I'm four years in and still doing work on it. Nothing on it worn, broken, or showing any signicant signs of age. My previous non-Apple laptops would, at most, work for about two years before keys start breaking, volume controls start malfunctioning, hinges crack, etc.
It may be the most expensive singular laptop purchase I've made. But if you look at how much I've spent on my laptops and divide it by how many useful years I've gotten out of them, I'm way ahead with the MBP.
You say price != value, but I don't think you fully understand the implications. For example, you *mean* to say "$2000 of price got me more than $2000 of value", but it could very well mean "$2000 of price got me $500 of value".
For example, in 2010 I bought a refurbished dell D630 for $140. I'm still using it daily for development. Sure, I don't run VM's on it, but it is used daily as a development machine. You've got a long way to go before you consider a $2k laptop/4 years to be a bargain of any sort.
How on earth is it possible to misunderstand this:
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong.
Your experience of being a few pounds overweight is not the same experience as someone who is seriously obese.
It actually is that simple - eat less, for a proper value of "less". The difficulty is in achieving the "eat less" part, not the "lose weight" part.
It actually is easy to lose weight - just "eat less". It may not be easy to "eat less", but that isn't what the OP claimed.
What he claimed is still correct, and if you have science showing someone taking in fewer calories than they use per day and *still* not losing any weight then get ready to receive your nobel prize.
Do you actually think that being obese does not cause any negative effects on anything other than chairs?
I never even came close to saying that. I said that 600 calories a day will make your weight go down eventually. I did not claim that obesity does not cause medical problems.
I said that the amount of people who's obesity is caused by a medical problem is microscopically small, not that the amount of people who have a medical problem caused by obesity is small.
When observation contradicts your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. The observation that there were/are no fat prisoners concentration camps contradicts your so-called "science" (I use that term loosely here) that eating less does not lead to weight loss. It does, for a proper value of "less".
When somebody eats 300-600 calories per day and still gains weight, there is something else going on.
It doesn't work that way - any adult who is on 600 calories/day will definitely lose weight eventually, even if they do have medical problems.
OTOH, the number of people with physiological issues that make them fat is so small it's not even a rounding error - seriously, too small to measure - so of course I'm skeptical when 90% of obese people claim it's due to medical reasons. The odds of them being correct is the same as me winning a lottery multiple consecutive times.
IOW, the person you claimed is on 600 calories a day... probably isn't.
It's no longer a "daft" game if serious amounts of money are involved and why the need for encryption of bets if everything is innocent and above board?
a) Serious amounts of money are involved in these web2.0 unicorns too, you know.
b) Encryption is needed to prevent ordinary folk reading the "predictions", forming a secondary betting market and going out and killing people to collect on the secondary market. Encryption ensures that the primary betting market will be the *only* betting market.
c) Whether or not everything is above board and innocent is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether the company (me/snapchat) can plausibly claim everything is above board and innocent. Had snapchat really had a "speed trophy" incentive, then their claim to not being liable for what a third party does is just as good as my claim.
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
There is a huge difference between paying someone to do something which is clearly illegal and having a daft game where people can compete completely legally.
We'll see how liable snapchat is found to be by the court. If the courts agree with you then I'm starting my own daft game.
My game is as follows: You place a bet with me. Your bet is simply when and where some famous figure will die, including details of Date, Time, Manner of death, etc. Your bet is encrypted so no one, not even I, can see it.
When the person dies, you (and all the others who placed bets on the same person) can send me all your keys to decrypt the bets you sent me, and I shall decrypt them all and split the $100k prize between all those who got the details correct.
Sure, for all practical purposes I have actually taken out a contract on the dead person. But my daft game lets people compete quite legally. If snapchat is not liable, at all, then my game (which has the practical effect of contract killing someone) should not be liable either, and can be fully public.
In the future I suspect that some people will still drive manually for pleasure,
That's fine, as long as they don't do it on a public road where they may endanger other people.
The whole "self-driving car" fad resembles the 3D-printer fad in more ways than one ("Everyone Will Have One!", "It will revolutionise $FOO"). And, much like the 3D printer fad, will dissipate into a few novelties on the road that will still need human drivers, but not much else.
Self-piloting aircraft is a much much much much easier problem to solve, and yet we still put meatbags into the pilot's seat. Once self-piloting aircraft is solved, then *maybe* (not certainly, but maybe) the problems with self-driving cars will be solved.
Self-driving cars that can drive on current roads will be a solved problem once we figure out strong AI.
They really are, over the last three decades: Violent crime has fallen while handgun ownership has risen. Tell us all - how do you manage to reconcile your worldview when the facts are in direct opposition to your position on any subject?
whether a file is text or binary you still need a tool to read it so its a meaningless argument.
No, I don't need a *special* tool to read it. I need a tool to read the disk and a tool to display to screen. I don't need a tool that goes in-between those two tools jut to read a text file. Those two tools are just fine. It's intellectually dishonest to claim what you claimed above.
You are basically making the claim that, because one needs a tool to decrypt ciphertext, that *proves* that everything is ciphertext. Sorry, no it isn't. Using dd to read a text file is not in any way the same as needing an executable with multiple libraries.
That is absolutely false. At no time did the researchers who took taxes for their work have the right to lock it behind a paywall. That work was stolen from the public, and you are going to give it back.
From the researchers PoV, "pirating" their papers is a benefit - scientific researchers are frequently graded on the number of papers that reference *them*, so having more people referencing their work is better for them.
This is a self-solving problem - The only value authors get is from readers, so a more open system benefits authors, which results in more authors moving to the open system, expanding the importance of the open system, which entices more authors, etc. Once this cycle gets started we can say goodbye, permanently, to Springer, Elsevier, etc paywalls.
Pirating helps everyone except the publishers. Good riddance.
I've put almost 300 hours into nethack on my blackberry passport (my main reason for getting that specific form factor). It still hasn't gotten old or boring for me. Admittedly, it's been a few decades with nethack in one form or another and it hasn't gotten boring yet.
Slashdot Mirror
It would, in theory, make the pool of men they encounter to more likely be interested in non-sexual aspects of a relationship, reducing the effort needed to filter men who falsify their intentions in order to gain sex.
Yeah, but
a) It's a smaller pool, and
b) They lose the ability to pretend to be interested in sexual activities.
That second one is important - a woman who isn't interested in sex with a particular man will still want that man to hang around because of the benefits of having a doormat and a fallback option in case the man she is having sex with doesn't want to settle down with her. To do this, they pretend that intimacy is not out of the question for the second-choice-man.
Having prostitutes around means that the second-choice-man is not going to hang around in the hope he gets laid, he's simply going to get laid, which is why it's only ever women against prostitution.
And what are they supposed to do, go to the cops and say "This guy is trying to steal my prostitution business?"
No, they are supposed to go to the cops and say "this guy hit me for standing on the street". She is at no risk of getting arrested for saying that.
Once a prostitute is in the clutches of a pimp, she's not free to leave to business either.
Yes, she is. She can tell the cops "this guys wants me to be a prostitute".
Even if she wants to move to a different city, if the pimp keeps her in place by threats to her friends and family.
Once again, she has legal recourse if she doesn't want to be a prostitute.
And not every prostitute is a prostitute by choice. There are runaways who fall into a pimp's control; rural foreigners who are tricked into thinking they're immigrating to the US for a high-paying (by their standards) domestic service job.
Understand I have no issues with prostitution per se, but I have a big problem with slavery, and in any system where prostitutes operate outside the protection of the law it's a given that most of them are de facto slaves.
Yeah, I'm skeptical - I'd rather avoid the whole argument by making prostitution and solicitation legal. We pay for sex in kind anyway.
Social Scientists, when conducting research, are under a moral obligation to make sure that their participants are not under more than 'minimal risk' as a result of the research.
How is this different from other scientists? I remember writing motivation for the ethics review board for anything involving living creatures, plants excluded.
You mean the convenience of walking 200 meters in the cold rain through a parking lot to get to your car, while the SDC-Uber customers are picked up at the curb, under an awning?
That won't happen because it doesn't scale. 30 people can exit a building *and* clear out of the entrance at a rate of 1 person per second. 30 people getting into cars at the entrance is going to take roughly ten minutes.
I hope they never figure the self driving thing out.
Don't worry; it's not going to happen anytime soon. "Self-driving cars" is the new "3D printer" topic for slashdot regs to orgasm over. My prediction: based on how viable ./ regulars think this is, it's never going to take off.
All the proponents of self-driving cars who feel that it is only 20 years off have forgotten when AI was "only 20 years away", and when flying cars were "only 20 years away", and when BTC was going to take over the world "in the next 3 years". The tech will be developed, but like flying cars and 3D printers and BTC, will remain attractive to a a very small group of techies.
You've got a long way to go before you consider a $2k laptop/4 years to be a bargain of any sort.
The D630 was insufficient even back in its day for the work that I do. Not all of us can get by with bargain-basement craptops.
Craptop? I drove over a work-supplied d630 and all that happened was the screen cracked and the HDD stopped working - replaced both and the thing still worked until the day I left. My previous post I actually meant to say "d830" (got it confused with the d630); the d830 is the one I'm still using, and that hardly counts as a "craptop", especially since my one has a quadro GPU and 1200px vertical resolution. You know - the things that matter to development?
Your laptop works for you - great - but it's far from being a bargain, especially considering the poor vertical resolution (900px? 800px? That's like programming through a letterbox)
Price != Value. I also spent a little over two grand on a 2012 MacBook Pro and it's still behaving quite nicely. I'm four years in and still doing work on it. Nothing on it worn, broken, or showing any signicant signs of age. My previous non-Apple laptops would, at most, work for about two years before keys start breaking, volume controls start malfunctioning, hinges crack, etc.
It may be the most expensive singular laptop purchase I've made. But if you look at how much I've spent on my laptops and divide it by how many useful years I've gotten out of them, I'm way ahead with the MBP.
You say price != value, but I don't think you fully understand the implications. For example, you *mean* to say "$2000 of price got me more than $2000 of value", but it could very well mean "$2000 of price got me $500 of value".
For example, in 2010 I bought a refurbished dell D630 for $140. I'm still using it daily for development. Sure, I don't run VM's on it, but it is used daily as a development machine. You've got a long way to go before you consider a $2k laptop/4 years to be a bargain of any sort.
FPS Map Design
In all fairness, the Far Cry series (1, 2, 3 and 4) don't have linear maps interspersed with cutscenes.
So you have some actual evidence that these islands sinking is due to subduction, right? As well as evidence that there is no sea level rise, right?
With a sea rise of (best case) 2.5mm/year, I really have to ask - how short do you think these islands were?
No I didn't. You misunderstood.
How on earth is it possible to misunderstand this:
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong. Your experience of being a few pounds overweight is not the same experience as someone who is seriously obese.
It actually is that simple - eat less, for a proper value of "less". The difficulty is in achieving the "eat less" part, not the "lose weight" part.
It actually is easy to lose weight - just "eat less". It may not be easy to "eat less", but that isn't what the OP claimed.
What he claimed is still correct, and if you have science showing someone taking in fewer calories than they use per day and *still* not losing any weight then get ready to receive your nobel prize.
You literally disputed that eating less reduces weight. That was, and still is, wrong because eating less will, in fact, reduce your weight.
Do you actually think that being obese does not cause any negative effects on anything other than chairs?
I never even came close to saying that. I said that 600 calories a day will make your weight go down eventually. I did not claim that obesity does not cause medical problems.
I said that the amount of people who's obesity is caused by a medical problem is microscopically small, not that the amount of people who have a medical problem caused by obesity is small.
Seriously: You fat? Eat less. It's that simple.
Science says you;re wrong.
When observation contradicts your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. The observation that there were/are no fat prisoners concentration camps contradicts your so-called "science" (I use that term loosely here) that eating less does not lead to weight loss. It does, for a proper value of "less".
When somebody eats 300-600 calories per day and still gains weight, there is something else going on.
It doesn't work that way - any adult who is on 600 calories/day will definitely lose weight eventually, even if they do have medical problems.
OTOH, the number of people with physiological issues that make them fat is so small it's not even a rounding error - seriously, too small to measure - so of course I'm skeptical when 90% of obese people claim it's due to medical reasons. The odds of them being correct is the same as me winning a lottery multiple consecutive times.
IOW, the person you claimed is on 600 calories a day... probably isn't.
Sure they are, they just don't race as fast as thin people unless you drop them from an airplane.
Idiocy is more of a problem than obesity will ever be - as evidenced by the fact that you think more weight would make someone fall faster.
Where did he say that? He said "as fast as", not "faster than".
When did they stop talking about how gravity works in public schools?
Ironic.
It's no longer a "daft" game if serious amounts of money are involved and why the need for encryption of bets if everything is innocent and above board?
a) Serious amounts of money are involved in these web2.0 unicorns too, you know.
b) Encryption is needed to prevent ordinary folk reading the "predictions", forming a secondary betting market and going out and killing people to collect on the secondary market. Encryption ensures that the primary betting market will be the *only* betting market.
c) Whether or not everything is above board and innocent is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether the company (me/snapchat) can plausibly claim everything is above board and innocent. Had snapchat really had a "speed trophy" incentive, then their claim to not being liable for what a third party does is just as good as my claim.
everybody realizes that the only things scarce enough to merit payment anymore are time and human companionship?
So the very first profession will also be the very last one too?
This thinking is disgusting. No. You are responsible for your actions. Anything can be incentive.
Courts can and do split responsibility between parties. I would not be surprised if a court found snapchat to be partially complicit in this.
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
There is a huge difference between paying someone to do something which is clearly illegal and having a daft game where people can compete completely legally.
We'll see how liable snapchat is found to be by the court. If the courts agree with you then I'm starting my own daft game.
My game is as follows: You place a bet with me. Your bet is simply when and where some famous figure will die, including details of Date, Time, Manner of death, etc. Your bet is encrypted so no one, not even I, can see it.
When the person dies, you (and all the others who placed bets on the same person) can send me all your keys to decrypt the bets you sent me, and I shall decrypt them all and split the $100k prize between all those who got the details correct.
Sure, for all practical purposes I have actually taken out a contract on the dead person. But my daft game lets people compete quite legally. If snapchat is not liable, at all, then my game (which has the practical effect of contract killing someone) should not be liable either, and can be fully public.
George Carlin
In the future I suspect that some people will still drive manually for pleasure,
That's fine, as long as they don't do it on a public road where they may endanger other people.
The whole "self-driving car" fad resembles the 3D-printer fad in more ways than one ("Everyone Will Have One!", "It will revolutionise $FOO"). And, much like the 3D printer fad, will dissipate into a few novelties on the road that will still need human drivers, but not much else.
Self-piloting aircraft is a much much much much easier problem to solve, and yet we still put meatbags into the pilot's seat. Once self-piloting aircraft is solved, then *maybe* (not certainly, but maybe) the problems with self-driving cars will be solved.
Self-driving cars that can drive on current roads will be a solved problem once we figure out strong AI.
The stats are really clear.
They really are, over the last three decades: Violent crime has fallen while handgun ownership has risen. Tell us all - how do you manage to reconcile your worldview when the facts are in direct opposition to your position on any subject?
whether a file is text or binary you still need a tool to read it so its a meaningless argument.
No, I don't need a *special* tool to read it. I need a tool to read the disk and a tool to display to screen. I don't need a tool that goes in-between those two tools jut to read a text file. Those two tools are just fine. It's intellectually dishonest to claim what you claimed above.
You are basically making the claim that, because one needs a tool to decrypt ciphertext, that *proves* that everything is ciphertext. Sorry, no it isn't. Using dd to read a text file is not in any way the same as needing an executable with multiple libraries.
That is absolutely false. At no time did the researchers who took taxes for their work have the right to lock it behind a paywall. That work was stolen from the public, and you are going to give it back.
From the researchers PoV, "pirating" their papers is a benefit - scientific researchers are frequently graded on the number of papers that reference *them*, so having more people referencing their work is better for them.
This is a self-solving problem - The only value authors get is from readers, so a more open system benefits authors, which results in more authors moving to the open system, expanding the importance of the open system, which entices more authors, etc. Once this cycle gets started we can say goodbye, permanently, to Springer, Elsevier, etc paywalls.
Pirating helps everyone except the publishers. Good riddance.
I've put almost 300 hours into nethack on my blackberry passport (my main reason for getting that specific form factor). It still hasn't gotten old or boring for me. Admittedly, it's been a few decades with nethack in one form or another and it hasn't gotten boring yet.