Centrists by their nature aren't inclined to think that screaming their lungs out with fellow believers changes anything. But if there was such a rally, I'm pretty sure their chant would be more like "Stop pandering with your transparently utopian bullshit". Or maybe, "No, if the one opposition politician that you've decided to hate beyond all rationality disappears tomorrow, the world's problems won't be solved instantly."
Or maybe just, "Grow the-fuck Up".
When you reach a certain age, you start to realize that mountains aren't climbed by leaping off a cliff and hoping you can fly; they're climbed by taking tens of thousands of little steps, each of which don't seem like they're accomplishing anything.
Yeah, I get it. Googlers got to eat too. And I use enough of their services that having them keep track of every time I use their service to tailor ads to me is a fair enough tradeoff. I'm not buying poodle-porn and doggie sex toys anyway. I don't even know if that exists (though maybe I'm about to find out.)
But Jesus Christ (no, google, I'm not interested in finding a church), they really need to adjust their machine learning algorithms (please, no keyword matches for that either). I go buy a vacuum cleaner from Amazon, and for months afterwards I'm getting ads for the same model that I already bought!
I mean seriously. If you go google for wedding cake (no, please no marriage ads - that will look pretty strange next to the doggie sex toy ads), what happens? You get tons of ads, as if you have to get a bulk discount of wedding cake.
I couldn't agree with this more. I write hard and semi-hard (at least plausible) speculative fiction. But I only self-publish, since most houses mostly all just want Marvel-esque adventure stories, filed with superhero and/or gaming-protagonist tropes. That is, if they're interested at all - and there are economic reasons why they shouldn't.
Real Science Fiction inherently appeals to only a small segment of the market already (i.e. intelligent people). This is why "Rick and Morty" struggles, while "Big Bang Theory" (which makes fun of intelligent people) succeeds.
He is correct. You are utterly wrong. You're actually putting forward a macro-conspiracy theory, though you're also clearly too ignorant to be aware of it. There are far too many controls in place for that kind of self-dealing to occur in federal procurement. Absolutely everything is reviewed by hundreds of people before it is approved; that's the major reason why the Federal government is so slow and bureaucratic.
The real "corruption" is how major employers garnering Federal contracts have their local Congressman in their pocket. It leads to the Pentagon telling Congress to stop buying it equipment that it doesn't need. But even with this, it's a matter of votes, not money.
It is a mark of how far Slashdot has fallen that ignorance like yours is upvoted to +5, with nary a supporting statement on your side.
There is a lot to take issue with in terms of this study, starting with the dosage.
Hundreds of adult worker bees were collected from a single hive, treated with either 5 mg/L glyphosate (G-5), 10 mg/L glyphosate (G-10) or sterile sucrose syrup (control) for 5 d, and returned to their original hive. Bees were marked on the thorax with paint to make them distinguishable in the hive. Glyphosate concentrations were chosen to mimic environmental levels, which typically range between 1.4 and 7.6 mg/L (24), and may be encountered by bees foraging at flowering weeds.
That last conclusion is extremely suspect. Concentrations as high as 5mg/L glyphosate are basically never found except in groundwater sources except for a few days after a significant overspray. It never gets into nectar anywhere near that level. Not only does glyphosate degrade over time, but the plants which take it in never bring it all the way up to the flowers. It kills them instead. That's what it's supposed to do.
Further, there is no dose-response relationship. If this was real, rather than just statistical noise from too small a sample, you would expect that the 10mg/L "roundup" they fed to the bees would have had a worse reaction. Nothing like that happened.
Even then, the author's conclusions are misquoted. What they really concluded was this:
Exposure of bees to glyphosate can perturb their beneficial gut microbiota, potentially affecting bee health and their effectiveness as pollinators.
I'm liberal myself, but this anti-scientic luddism that is trendy among the comfortably well off hippie left drives me nuts.
They note that Twitter doesn't shadow ban at all, and to the extent that Twitter’s new algorithm doesn't auto-populate the search box with some links, that is only because they're trying to improve the quality of their data by not showing (by default) accounts that troll or help to spread false information.
You might as well attack Slashdot for hiding "Obama is a Kenyan muslim who is responsible for 9/11" posts, when they're voted as Troll/Flamebait.
Judging about how many "conservatives" panties got in a wad about Michelle Wolf's roast (including, grab 'em jokes, "pull out" jokes, and lying eye-shadow jokes), at the 2018 Washington Press's Correspondents' Dinner, I'd say that there's no more concentrated a form of whiny entitled professional victim than the white wing racist set.
Snivelling about how horrible it is that other people are describing you with words that are damaging to your fragile ego, is not the way to convince the rest of us that it's everyone else who is the snowflake. Man up, and realize that rap albums aren't meant to be sing-alongs. Not for you, anyway. You'll just have to suffer through life knowing that.
The right wing extremists have a bit of catching up to do then, it seems. I haven't observed any right-wing extremists shutting down political rallies, smashing storefronts, or shouting down public speakers on campus lately.
Surely, YouTube/google doesn't just pay people instantly, do they? It would be easy enough for them to either not pay the money or switch it to the actual content creator, long before any check was sent out.
Yes, this does mean that you have to be watching to see if your content is being plagerized, but this is part of the whole DMCA legislative compromise - just from the content creator's point of view.
This is how we know cell phones are safe: they emit the radio energy of a standard flashlight, 0.6 watts to 3 watts. Radio towers, buried in the heart of cities, emit up to 50,000 watts. Even miles away, that's vastly more photons going through your body. And there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of any increase in cancer around such radio towers as you live nearer to them.
The same thing goes for cell-phone towers, which emit a minimum of 500 watts, and can go up to thousands of watts of radio waves to reach your little phone. Absolutely zero evidence whatsoever of any increased cancer risk.
Long term epidemiological studies have shown that non-ionizing radiation has no observable health hazard. It makes perfect sense why. The tiny amount of interactions warm the body to such a small degree, you get ten thousand times the warming effect in a hot shower. (Need I mention natural ground radiation, which actually can do chromosomal damage?)
I can understand why non-scientific BS might be acceptable on Pinterest. But slashdot? What has this site become? News for Luddites?
That works when the other party is actually at fault. It doesn't work when there's documented evidence that you're suing on behalf of someone who jumped out in front of traffic, and absolutely nobody could have avoided hitting her.
It makes economic sense for Uber, because just responding to discovery requests is likely more expensive than paying out something relatively nominal, even if they weren't at all at fault. But if you don't settle when you really have no case, you eventually get absolutely nothing.
Networks can't "compete" - not when right of way on the last mile is a public resource. The best you can do is keep providers from taking untoward economic advantage of their natural monopoly. Network neutrality is a part of that, keeping from from double dipping.
Hawaii-Doug Chin("Nonpartisan" - Endorsed almost entirely by Ds)
Illinois - Lisa Madigan(D)
Iowa - Tom Miller(D)
Kentucky - Andy Beshar(D)
Maine - Janet T. Mills(D)
Maryland - Brian Frosh(D)
Massachusetts - Maura Healey(D)
Minnesota - Lori Swanson(D)
Mississippi - Jim Hood(D)
New Mexico - Hector Balderas(D)
North Carolina - Josh Stein(D)
Oregon - Ellen Rosenblum(D)
Pennsylvania - Josh Shapiro(D)
Rhode Island - Peter Kilmartin(D)
Vermont - T. J. Donovan(D)
Virginia - Mark Herring(D)
Washington - Bob Ferguson(D)
Washington DC - Karl Racine(D)
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Given the disparity of tech-savvy between generations, it seems more likely that this technology will result in the kids locking out the parents, rather than the reverse.
No one is seriously going to try to use C for front end web development, just as no one is seriously going to try to use Javascript in an embedded microprocessor. So what this study is doing is just pointing out where the current jobs are.
Trying to compare languages, is like asking "which is better? a band saw or a screw driver?". They're entirely different. And anyone who doesn't understand that, simply doesn't have enough experience with other programming tools yet.
In the Democratic nomination contest, Clinton got 3.7 Million more votes than Sanders did, so the only way this could possibly be true is if declaring the person with more votes to be the winner, is somehow akin to "stealing".
Anyone who believes that, pines after dictatorship, not democracy.
So, I'm reading all these Slashdot comments, and just am amazed at one thing that wasn't even close to true even ten years ago.
Not only do Republicans appear to hate the environment, they clearly hate basic capitalism too.
I would make a Russian communist joke starting with "Da comrade..." but given what's in the news, am worried it might be confused with a real critique.
It's used by drug cartels, for ransomware, tax evasion, massive corruption in third-world countries, human trafficking, and any other means of washing cash clean of where it came from - nearly always being profits from the economic benefits of victimization (or at the very least, allowing the mega-wealthy to pretend that they're a lot poorer than they are to as to pay a tiny fraction of their wealth compared to the poor and middle class).
The bottom will fall out of it as soon as governments pass laws to de-anonymize it, which they have every right to do.
Until then, the question is, do you want to profit from such a scheme? Probably for many, the answer is "why not"? But not from me.
Here in Portland, OR, the local community college network charges $104 per credit.
Thanks entirely to the Democratic ownership of the state legislature and the governorship, Oregon promises free community college for any legal state resident starting out college from highschool (or GED), who isn't a trust fund baby, and has at least a 2.5 GPA, via the Oregon Promise Grant. You do have to file out some forms, but then you're golden.
You must meet all of the following criteria:
Complete an Oregon Promise Grant Application by the appropriate deadline
File a FAFSA or ORSAA application and list at least one Oregon community college
Be a recent Oregon high school graduate or GED recipient
Document a 2.5 cumulative high school GPA or higher; or a GED score of 145 or higher on each test
Plan to attend at least half-time at an Oregon community college within 6 months of high school graduation or GED completion
Be an Oregon resident for at least 12 months prior to college attendance
Must not have more than 90 college credits completed or attempted
Beginning with Fall 2017 applicants, students may be subject to eligibility criteria based on their Expected Family Contribution (EFC). The EFC limit for 2017-18 applicants is $18,000. New applicants who are above the EFC limit will not be eligible for an award. The EFC criteria is subject to change.
There are plenty of web development classes as well.
The massive pegging of CPU is hardly new. There have always been terrible websites - many of them video ones - which for various reasons, such up as much CPU as they're able to, bringing the machine to a crawl. Most of them are video related, including flash (it was notorious), and - in its early days - YouTube. The worst are those that call functions of code you had to install natively.
The problem is that most browsers give absolutely no indication that this is happening, leaving the user to wonder why his PC is slow. Yes, you can do a top/task-manager/activity monitor to figure out what is going wrong, but even if you're that sophisticated, you often end up having to kill the entire process simply to stop one errant thread. This never works for unsophisticated users.
In a sense, this is quite a bit like the "where the hell is that audio coming from?" problem in browsers, except that it isn't even that obvious. What is really needed is for browsers to forcibly sleep threads of background windows for 90% of their time. (Don't just lower their priority; that doesn't work.) Also, if a thread demands CPU constantly, put a pattern on the tab and shake it back and forth. That will let people know when some errant javascript is taking up your CPU horsepower.
Unless you want to put a "virus checker" or an AI inside of the browser to figure out what code is doing, trying to just filter based on what code is doing isn't going to work. There are too many ways to disguise these kinds of calculations. Focus on the ultimate effect.
What anti-union company is not going to use general terminations to rid itself of organizers?
Ones that don't want to be sued out of existence. Selectively firing pro-union workers is a major illegal act, something akin to stock fraud. This is why companies try to do their best to keep records on everything so they can show they're not just targeting like this
And the planted Hillary too so that she would be hated as first lady so badly that people still hate her 20 years later when 3.7 million more Democratic voters preferred her in the primary.
Fixed that for you.
Seriously, for all that the far left pretends that Democrats are just the same as Republicans, they themselves are often as fact-challenged (and/or willing to shovel complete bullshit) as the worst Trump voter.
For all his ability to pitch to the public, Steve Jobs took direct interest in the products his company sold, rather than just focus on managing the company and leaving the decisions to be hashed out by committees developing a consensus several levels below him. The result is what you see now in Apple products - a muddled mess of different ideas that just don't fit together right, and very little actual customer value. The whole "facial recognition as your password" business for example, is certainly not worth the cost to regular consumers, and absolutely not so to people who care about actual security (for several obvious reasons I don't need to remind nerds about).
Like it or not, the world needs Simon Cowell types, who can simply act for the consumer and say "no - not good enough". They may be hard to work for, but without them you get stagnation, as we're seeing here.
Slashdot Mirror
Centrists by their nature aren't inclined to think that screaming their lungs out with fellow believers changes anything. But if there was such a rally, I'm pretty sure their chant would be more like "Stop pandering with your transparently utopian bullshit". Or maybe, "No, if the one opposition politician that you've decided to hate beyond all rationality disappears tomorrow, the world's problems won't be solved instantly."
Or maybe just, "Grow the-fuck Up".
When you reach a certain age, you start to realize that mountains aren't climbed by leaping off a cliff and hoping you can fly; they're climbed by taking tens of thousands of little steps, each of which don't seem like they're accomplishing anything.
Yeah, I get it. Googlers got to eat too. And I use enough of their services that having them keep track of every time I use their service to tailor ads to me is a fair enough tradeoff. I'm not buying poodle-porn and doggie sex toys anyway. I don't even know if that exists (though maybe I'm about to find out.)
But Jesus Christ (no, google, I'm not interested in finding a church), they really need to adjust their machine learning algorithms (please, no keyword matches for that either). I go buy a vacuum cleaner from Amazon, and for months afterwards I'm getting ads for the same model that I already bought!
I mean seriously. If you go google for wedding cake (no, please no marriage ads - that will look pretty strange next to the doggie sex toy ads), what happens? You get tons of ads, as if you have to get a bulk discount of wedding cake.
I couldn't agree with this more. I write hard and semi-hard (at least plausible) speculative fiction. But I only self-publish, since most houses mostly all just want Marvel-esque adventure stories, filed with superhero and/or gaming-protagonist tropes. That is, if they're interested at all - and there are economic reasons why they shouldn't.
Real Science Fiction inherently appeals to only a small segment of the market already (i.e. intelligent people). This is why "Rick and Morty" struggles, while "Big Bang Theory" (which makes fun of intelligent people) succeeds.
He is correct. You are utterly wrong. You're actually putting forward a macro-conspiracy theory, though you're also clearly too ignorant to be aware of it. There are far too many controls in place for that kind of self-dealing to occur in federal procurement. Absolutely everything is reviewed by hundreds of people before it is approved; that's the major reason why the Federal government is so slow and bureaucratic.
The real "corruption" is how major employers garnering Federal contracts have their local Congressman in their pocket. It leads to the Pentagon telling Congress to stop buying it equipment that it doesn't need. But even with this, it's a matter of votes, not money.
It is a mark of how far Slashdot has fallen that ignorance like yours is upvoted to +5, with nary a supporting statement on your side.
There is a lot to take issue with in terms of this study, starting with the dosage.
Hundreds of adult worker bees were collected from a single hive, treated with either 5 mg/L glyphosate (G-5), 10 mg/L glyphosate (G-10) or sterile sucrose syrup (control) for 5 d, and returned to their original hive. Bees were marked on the thorax with paint to make them distinguishable in the hive. Glyphosate concentrations were chosen to mimic environmental levels, which typically range between 1.4 and 7.6 mg/L (24), and may be encountered by bees foraging at flowering weeds.
That last conclusion is extremely suspect. Concentrations as high as 5mg/L glyphosate are basically never found except in groundwater sources except for a few days after a significant overspray. It never gets into nectar anywhere near that level. Not only does glyphosate degrade over time, but the plants which take it in never bring it all the way up to the flowers. It kills them instead. That's what it's supposed to do.
Further, there is no dose-response relationship. If this was real, rather than just statistical noise from too small a sample, you would expect that the 10mg/L "roundup" they fed to the bees would have had a worse reaction. Nothing like that happened.
Even then, the author's conclusions are misquoted. What they really concluded was this:
Exposure of bees to glyphosate can perturb their beneficial gut microbiota, potentially affecting bee health and their effectiveness as pollinators.
I'm liberal myself, but this anti-scientic luddism that is trendy among the comfortably well off hippie left drives me nuts.
They note that Twitter doesn't shadow ban at all, and to the extent that Twitter’s new algorithm doesn't auto-populate the search box with some links, that is only because they're trying to improve the quality of their data by not showing (by default) accounts that troll or help to spread false information.
You might as well attack Slashdot for hiding "Obama is a Kenyan muslim who is responsible for 9/11" posts, when they're voted as Troll/Flamebait.
Judging about how many "conservatives" panties got in a wad about Michelle Wolf's roast (including, grab 'em jokes, "pull out" jokes, and lying eye-shadow jokes), at the 2018 Washington Press's Correspondents' Dinner, I'd say that there's no more concentrated a form of whiny entitled professional victim than the white wing racist set.
Snivelling about how horrible it is that other people are describing you with words that are damaging to your fragile ego, is not the way to convince the rest of us that it's everyone else who is the snowflake. Man up, and realize that rap albums aren't meant to be sing-alongs. Not for you, anyway. You'll just have to suffer through life knowing that.
The right wing extremists have a bit of catching up to do then, it seems. I haven't observed any right-wing extremists shutting down political rallies, smashing storefronts, or shouting down public speakers on campus lately.
Truth
Right wingers generally stick to murdering people.
They murder more cops too
Surely, YouTube/google doesn't just pay people instantly, do they? It would be easy enough for them to either not pay the money or switch it to the actual content creator, long before any check was sent out.
Yes, this does mean that you have to be watching to see if your content is being plagerized, but this is part of the whole DMCA legislative compromise - just from the content creator's point of view.
This is how we know cell phones are safe: they emit the radio energy of a standard flashlight, 0.6 watts to 3 watts. Radio towers, buried in the heart of cities, emit up to 50,000 watts. Even miles away, that's vastly more photons going through your body. And there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of any increase in cancer around such radio towers as you live nearer to them.
The same thing goes for cell-phone towers, which emit a minimum of 500 watts, and can go up to thousands of watts of radio waves to reach your little phone. Absolutely zero evidence whatsoever of any increased cancer risk.
Long term epidemiological studies have shown that non-ionizing radiation has no observable health hazard. It makes perfect sense why. The tiny amount of interactions warm the body to such a small degree, you get ten thousand times the warming effect in a hot shower. (Need I mention natural ground radiation, which actually can do chromosomal damage?)
I can understand why non-scientific BS might be acceptable on Pinterest. But slashdot? What has this site become? News for Luddites?
The point is: lawyer up and don't settle.
That works when the other party is actually at fault. It doesn't work when there's documented evidence that you're suing on behalf of someone who jumped out in front of traffic, and absolutely nobody could have avoided hitting her.
It makes economic sense for Uber, because just responding to discovery requests is likely more expensive than paying out something relatively nominal, even if they weren't at all at fault. But if you don't settle when you really have no case, you eventually get absolutely nothing.
Networks can't "compete" - not when right of way on the last mile is a public resource. The best you can do is keep providers from taking untoward economic advantage of their natural monopoly. Network neutrality is a part of that, keeping from from double dipping.
...aren't the ones who need "vaccination".
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Simple, irrefutable, facts, people.
Given the disparity of tech-savvy between generations, it seems more likely that this technology will result in the kids locking out the parents, rather than the reverse.
No one is seriously going to try to use C for front end web development, just as no one is seriously going to try to use Javascript in an embedded microprocessor. So what this study is doing is just pointing out where the current jobs are.
Trying to compare languages, is like asking "which is better? a band saw or a screw driver?". They're entirely different. And anyone who doesn't understand that, simply doesn't have enough experience with other programming tools yet.
In the Democratic nomination contest, Clinton got 3.7 Million more votes than Sanders did, so the only way this could possibly be true is if declaring the person with more votes to be the winner, is somehow akin to "stealing".
Anyone who believes that, pines after dictatorship, not democracy.
Don't worry. Already they're trying to pretend that it's all Obama's fault.
So, I'm reading all these Slashdot comments, and just am amazed at one thing that wasn't even close to true even ten years ago.
Not only do Republicans appear to hate the environment, they clearly hate basic capitalism too.
I would make a Russian communist joke starting with "Da comrade..." but given what's in the news, am worried it might be confused with a real critique.
Nothing else,
It's used by drug cartels, for ransomware, tax evasion, massive corruption in third-world countries, human trafficking, and any other means of washing cash clean of where it came from - nearly always being profits from the economic benefits of victimization (or at the very least, allowing the mega-wealthy to pretend that they're a lot poorer than they are to as to pay a tiny fraction of their wealth compared to the poor and middle class).
The bottom will fall out of it as soon as governments pass laws to de-anonymize it, which they have every right to do.
Until then, the question is, do you want to profit from such a scheme? Probably for many, the answer is "why not"? But not from me.
Thanks entirely to the Democratic ownership of the state legislature and the governorship, Oregon promises free community college for any legal state resident starting out college from highschool (or GED), who isn't a trust fund baby, and has at least a 2.5 GPA, via the Oregon Promise Grant. You do have to file out some forms, but then you're golden.
You must meet all of the following criteria:
There are plenty of web development classes as well.
The massive pegging of CPU is hardly new. There have always been terrible websites - many of them video ones - which for various reasons, such up as much CPU as they're able to, bringing the machine to a crawl. Most of them are video related, including flash (it was notorious), and - in its early days - YouTube. The worst are those that call functions of code you had to install natively.
The problem is that most browsers give absolutely no indication that this is happening, leaving the user to wonder why his PC is slow. Yes, you can do a top/task-manager/activity monitor to figure out what is going wrong, but even if you're that sophisticated, you often end up having to kill the entire process simply to stop one errant thread. This never works for unsophisticated users.
In a sense, this is quite a bit like the "where the hell is that audio coming from?" problem in browsers, except that it isn't even that obvious. What is really needed is for browsers to forcibly sleep threads of background windows for 90% of their time. (Don't just lower their priority; that doesn't work.) Also, if a thread demands CPU constantly, put a pattern on the tab and shake it back and forth. That will let people know when some errant javascript is taking up your CPU horsepower.
Unless you want to put a "virus checker" or an AI inside of the browser to figure out what code is doing, trying to just filter based on what code is doing isn't going to work. There are too many ways to disguise these kinds of calculations. Focus on the ultimate effect.
What anti-union company is not going to use general terminations to rid itself of organizers?
Ones that don't want to be sued out of existence. Selectively firing pro-union workers is a major illegal act, something akin to stock fraud. This is why companies try to do their best to keep records on everything so they can show they're not just targeting like this
And the planted Hillary too so that she would be hated as first lady so badly that people still hate her 20 years later when 3.7 million more Democratic voters preferred her in the primary.
Fixed that for you.
Seriously, for all that the far left pretends that Democrats are just the same as Republicans, they themselves are often as fact-challenged (and/or willing to shovel complete bullshit) as the worst Trump voter.
For all his ability to pitch to the public, Steve Jobs took direct interest in the products his company sold, rather than just focus on managing the company and leaving the decisions to be hashed out by committees developing a consensus several levels below him. The result is what you see now in Apple products - a muddled mess of different ideas that just don't fit together right, and very little actual customer value. The whole "facial recognition as your password" business for example, is certainly not worth the cost to regular consumers, and absolutely not so to people who care about actual security (for several obvious reasons I don't need to remind nerds about).
Like it or not, the world needs Simon Cowell types, who can simply act for the consumer and say "no - not good enough". They may be hard to work for, but without them you get stagnation, as we're seeing here.