No, "Ape" is a very specific term used to specify members of Hominoidea. It is unfortunate many are ignorant of the meaning of the term and use it improperly to include monkeys.
Humans are apes - specifically, great apes. (aka Hominidae aka "hominids"). "Hominids" simply means human-like. It used to mean only humans, then it included other extinct human-like creatures and now it generally includes all hominidae. While "hominid" (or alternatively "great ape") is a more specific term, it is certainly NOT a more correct term, merely the Family of the SuperFamily.
One could say that humans are mammals and it would be no less correct. Humans are animals, chordates, mammals, primates, apes, and also great apes.
It's unfortunate that the Google facial recognition software was not aware that humans don't like being reminded that they are indeed very closely related to other great apes and could easily be confused with gorillas by a non-human intelligence. Our indignance at the notion we're apes that look a lot like gorillas is rather silly -- like zebras being offended at being miscategorized as ordinary horses.
Granted, I understand the racist implication that those flagged erroneously as gorillas are somehow less human than others. Thankfully, the computer isn't racist. It merely wasn't sophisticated enough to discern the difference given the input, the algorithm, and its training.
I'm impressed it figured out the object in the photo was a living thing and got the kingdom, phylum, class, order, superfamily, family and sub-family correct. If it had chosen chimp or bonobo, it would have been even closer.
Heck, check out this comparison of a gorilla baby and a human baby -- no one would have blinked an eye if the software said the gorilla was a human baby.
http://intentblog.com/wp-conte...
"Ape" is a general language term that can be used by different people to specify quite different groups of creatures; it's more correct to say we're all hominids.
Structure your comments better... decoding your babble isn't worth my time.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away, before I taunt you a second time!
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
"I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology."
"1) Pewe [my typo] polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left."
"Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light."
"http://www.pewresearch.org/top... [pewresearch.org]"
sorry, but you have to point out exactly what part of that methodology, and/or the discussion of difficulties of accuracy, and all the things you pulled out of your hinders in your OP actually act to "bias" the survey in terms of the findings, i.e. that people's belief in science depends on how closely it matches their a priori beliefs. You suggest that people will fudge the truth, say, to make themselves look better; how exactly does that relate to liberals saying they agree with science regarding AGW more often than conservatives do? Are you saying the liberals are pretending they agree when they don't, and the conservatives are pretending they don't when they do? How exactly does is there anything at all resembling evidence behind all this musing?
"In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support"
" As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?"
No, I'm saying the outstanding thing about your "skepticism" is that it emanates from wilful ignorance, literally; you could have found out the answers to your questions in seconds, but you didn't care to, as your arguments work better with innuendos based on things you dredge up from your pure dark imagination. FUD on the teacup scale. I provide answers to the questions you ask, and you decide that just proves that you were right the whole time. A posteriori justifying your conclusions, in that you pulled them out of your posterior.
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
1) Pewe polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left.
2) It's not as if you could read the methodology and find out what they did wrong. Oh wait, http://www.pewresearch.org/top...
3) So, we see once again, that whenever something appears on the internet which may be interpreted as critical of the right, rightwingers will appear en masse to post comments demonstrating that it is correct. In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support. qed.
You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?
That is the clear intention of the article summary, because it highlights only those issues where Democrats are more likely to agree with scientists than Republicans. A more honest summary would have also brought attention to the subjects where Democrats differ from scientists: nuclear power, pesticide use in foods and animal research, for example.
You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?
There is a huge group of people who's opinion is based on what the party says, I am a loyal Democrat/Republican so my stance will match what they say. There is no attention of the detail of the message nor any attempt to challenge the notion brought up. So the Democrats say Global Warming is a problem, people will blindly follow. If the Democrats say GMO foods are bad, they will blindly follow. Intelligence isn't the issue, it is just the current polarized nature of the two party system which will normally make one side right and the other wrong (assuming one side is right)
Now the Democrats vs Government view on funding. Democrats prefer more of a blanket funding in scientists, So Scientists who are funded via the Democrats policies have invested interests in that party, so they are making a living off of researching climate science due to Democrats funding, so they will be friendly to that party, and in turn that party will listen to their studies. The Republicans will more likely fund Military or Energy science. Where there is less science and more engineering. Thus you will find a lot more Right winged engineers. As their main means of living is due to Republican policy. So the Republicans will more likely push ideas of a new Military Technology or Energy Extraction technology.
It is interesting on how your political views change depending on where you are living and who is controlling your purse strings.
Now they are crazies on both sides. You got the Leftist hippie type who wants to change everything to match their utopian vision where everyone is all happy because they follow one idea of a perfect life. Then you got the Far Right densest who thinks we should go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" life style, that he fondly remembers as a child (too young to realize the pressures of the world). These guys can often get into the House or Representatives thus get enough media attention to direct "The I have to do what the party says" people.
That's the cognitive style model of current US politics (my name for it anyway). Basically, all those various personality theories (Myers–Briggs, etc) can usually be collapsed along one axis; data-driven decisionmaking vs intuitive/gut feeling decision making. The set of things we call "identity politics", loyal party member, hierarchical authoritarian, all fall into the latter category. At this point in time, for whatever reasons, the political "right" has purged itself of all the data-driven folks; you buy the whole rightist program because you are a rightist or you're out. There are plenty of such people on the left also, of course, "knee jerk liberals"; but the thing is that data-driven folks are almost all now considered leftist, because if you disagree with the doctrine on AGW or Obamacare or immigration you are cast out of the right. RINO and all that.
And the thing is, that the two kinds of decision making/personality do not get along well. They do not trust each other's decisions, they do not trust each other's motives, they do not trust each other personally. There is essentially no mobility between the two groups, they do not promote each other or support each other, etc. etc. etc. This is something that management consultants run into all the time; companies where the daily nitty gritty work is done by data-driven types, but the management is all gut feeling/instinctive types, and the two levels do not get along well. The prognosis for such companies is not favorable, there aren't any suggested remedies other than "try harder to get along".
So, here we are in the US of 2015.
I introduced sardines to my daughters as desert, and only give it to them as a treat. Now they enjoy an inexpensive, healthy snack when other kids demand ice cream and chocolate. If that's not a hack, then I don't know what is.
No offence, but are your kids retarded, or do you just lock them up in the basement away from any other human contact?
I find it hard to believe they don't know what "sweet" tastes like.
sweet is anything your parents restrict access to.
Being able to listen to music with your car doors open is great, if not for the dang "your keys are in the ignition. So I spend a couple hours ripping open my dash to get to the stupid thing and rip the connector loose. It was a vast improvement in the utility of my truck.
Or, you affix a small tab of sheet metal or plastic near the door light switch with a single screw so you can swivel it over so the switch thinks the door is closed..... takes 15 min. if you have an electric drill.
a) What makes you think that "we are begging for your money"? This whole issue is for giving us money so we can give it back to you (we have a budget surplus for our internal needs, we use the loans only to pay back the older loans), and by that no bankruptcy is declared (which would mean some disturbance for ALL).
b) What makes you think that buying some (much needed for our special defence needs) fleet of hovercrafts is a bad idea? Keeping ourselves capable to defend against Muslims is the best idea in the world... you (i guess you are from an EU civilized nation, since you wrote "your money") should do the same!
c) What makes you think that having Greeks protecting Europe from Muslims does not worth paying for? Only a moron can not understand this...
Whatever you do, do not try building a giant wooden statue of Mohammed and concealing your army inside and leaving it outside the Muslims' gates so they'll pull it in.
The irony is that some fellow Slashdoters complain all the time because i keep mention that i am Greek... all the time!
I should hope that you are Greek all the time. It would be very strange to be Greek in the morning, but Italian in the afternoon, and Russian all night.
Not at all.
Let's call that situation Gretalissian. From the point of view of a native Gretalissian, it must be very strange to be Gretalissian in the morning, Italigressian in the afternoon, and Russitaligreek all night. (figure out the definitions of the other two yourself). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is just too beautiful, you're like two warships warily circling one another in the dark, unable to pinpoint each other's location.
Unfortunately our poster has you at a disadvantage; perhaps this may be of assistance. I'd like to say "Ironically, it was Monty Python all along," but I'm not sure that's a good example of irony but if it actually was then I'm even less sure I'd get away with it.:-)
No one expects the Monty Python!!! Our chief weapon is surprise!!!
Maglev with superconductors and liquid nitrogen is not very impressive?
Sorry, I disagree.
Not for a skateboard. I'd rather have a skateboard with wheels that could go on any surface than a hoverboard that required a steel surface. Of course, it would make a hell of a monorail.....
Indeed. And my programs would run a lot quicker if pi was 4. Does anyone really want pi to be anything other than 4?
Anybody remember Fortran 66? You could define numbers to be whatever you wanted. You could put 1=2 x=4/1 print x and it would happily print out 2. Now that's the kind of powerful but cooperative computer language we need.
Infinity does not exist. Real mathematicians (ie - NOT you) only speak of numbers APPROACHING infinity. So, as the divisor approaches zero, the quotient approaches infinity. You cannot have infinity as a quantity since it does not exist. Otherwise what happens when you divide infinity by zero, and is that new infinity the same as the first infinity?
If infinity does not exist, for mathematicians, then how many integers are there? And how many points exist between 1.0001 and 1.0002 on the number line?
But the Limit as x approaches 0- of a/x = negative infinity.
because this represents a jump-discontinuity, the value of a/0 is just plain undefined.
This is like week-1 of high school precalc shit. Come on.
But +0 = -0 ; yet 1/(+0) does not equal 1/(-0)... Omigod everything we know is wrong. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Does not compute! Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Fzzt! (Thud)
Math is not expressive enough to handle the real world, since division by zero can occur without causing a problem. Example: you want to divide apples among people. You have one apple and two people, each person gets half an apple. You have one apple and no people, no one gets the apple. In the real world there is no problem with this reasoning, it's only that math fails to handle it so you have to include extra code to make it come out. In a real life situation, you need no extra error-handling because there is no error. In conclusion, math fails to express the natural world.
Let's deliver one apple for each infinitesimal fraction of a person. (Having fractional people instead of integers here is not unrealistic; say a government declares a law that apples are to be distributed to the population such that there is one apple given for each tenth of a person). Then each person gets a really huge number of apples. Let's deliver one apple for each 2 infinitesimal fractions of a person; now each person gets half as many apples. 3 fractions, 1/3 of that huge number, etc. Hey, let's go the other way, from one apple per 1 fraction to 1 apple per zero; we know what the curve we've just plotted suggests. but you're saying it should be zero? no thanks, I prefer my math without arbitrary discontinuities and singularities.
Honestly, I think I'd prefer having pi defined as three than have division by zero return zero. My answers will at least be in the right domain even if the value is off a bit.:)
Pi is three! The Bible does not lie!
1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
It's easy to tell that the 3.14.... number is a Satanic Lie; merely add the first 144 digits. What do you get? 666!!!!!
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
Look at it this way. At any given time, there are a limited number of humans who are doing something that will help the species. The rest of us, we're just the breeding stock and life support for those guys.
Nothing simple about it, but it is significant and relevant. The amount of marketing that goes into getting people to buy "food" items, both prepared and in markets, is rivaled only by the amount of research that goes into making the food both attractive, and yet simultaneously NOT satiating. Health-wise, it's pretty much limited to the food not being legally toxic; otherwise the research that goes into processed food is pretty much the same as any other industrial chemical field, and that which goes into the raw food is more interested in making the food robust enough to survive picking, handling, and shipping than health. And the companies which sell the stuff are dedicated to moving more and more, like any other for-profit corporation selling a product.
If all of this stuff did not move more product, the companies would not do it. They measure the cost/benefit of all this activity very accurately. But that's the way we feed the nation now; we're not going to go back to the vast majority of Americans being small farmers. And we don't have any Plan C. All the foofraw over natural food, and healthy food, and unprocessed food, and blah blah is just a subset of the above processes, not a real commitment to putting customer's health over profit. We've been through this before, with things like adding vitamins to breakfast cereal. Does anybody believe that serves any real purpose in increasing people's health? Or is it just a good excuse people can tell themselves so they can buy the same sugar flavored cardboard their kids are trained to scream for by bright and cheery cartoon characters? See also "naturally gluten free!" the marketing cry of just about every food product that can manage it today. Because the corporations have become convinced that they need to save America from the dread fate of consuming gluten?
Slashdot Mirror
No, "Ape" is a very specific term used to specify members of Hominoidea. It is unfortunate many are ignorant of the meaning of the term and use it improperly to include monkeys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Humans are apes - specifically, great apes. (aka Hominidae aka "hominids"). "Hominids" simply means human-like. It used to mean only humans, then it included other extinct human-like creatures and now it generally includes all hominidae. While "hominid" (or alternatively "great ape") is a more specific term, it is certainly NOT a more correct term, merely the Family of the SuperFamily.
One could say that humans are mammals and it would be no less correct. Humans are animals, chordates, mammals, primates, apes, and also great apes.
It's unfortunate that the Google facial recognition software was not aware that humans don't like being reminded that they are indeed very closely related to other great apes and could easily be confused with gorillas by a non-human intelligence. Our indignance at the notion we're apes that look a lot like gorillas is rather silly -- like zebras being offended at being miscategorized as ordinary horses.
Granted, I understand the racist implication that those flagged erroneously as gorillas are somehow less human than others. Thankfully, the computer isn't racist. It merely wasn't sophisticated enough to discern the difference given the input, the algorithm, and its training.
I'm impressed it figured out the object in the photo was a living thing and got the kingdom, phylum, class, order, superfamily, family and sub-family correct. If it had chosen chimp or bonobo, it would have been even closer.
Heck, check out this comparison of a gorilla baby and a human baby -- no one would have blinked an eye if the software said the gorilla was a human baby. http://intentblog.com/wp-conte...
Another cute gorilla baby -- a bit older: http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly...
Terribly inaccurate performance. We're chimps, dammit.
"Ape" is a general language term that can be used by different people to specify quite different groups of creatures; it's more correct to say we're all hominids.
That's just an ad hominem argument.
Structure your comments better... decoding your babble isn't worth my time.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away, before I taunt you a second time!
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
"I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology."
"1) Pewe [my typo] polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left."
"Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues. This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it. This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often. Think about that. This all biases the results. On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions. The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard. The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light."
"http://www.pewresearch.org/top... [pewresearch.org]"
sorry, but you have to point out exactly what part of that methodology, and/or the discussion of difficulties of accuracy, and all the things you pulled out of your hinders in your OP actually act to "bias" the survey in terms of the findings, i.e. that people's belief in science depends on how closely it matches their a priori beliefs. You suggest that people will fudge the truth, say, to make themselves look better; how exactly does that relate to liberals saying they agree with science regarding AGW more often than conservatives do? Are you saying the liberals are pretending they agree when they don't, and the conservatives are pretending they don't when they do? How exactly does is there anything at all resembling evidence behind all this musing?
"In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support"
" As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?"
No, I'm saying the outstanding thing about your "skepticism" is that it emanates from wilful ignorance, literally; you could have found out the answers to your questions in seconds, but you didn't care to, as your arguments work better with innuendos based on things you dredge up from your pure dark imagination. FUD on the teacup scale. I provide answers to the questions you ask, and you decide that just proves that you were right the whole time. A posteriori justifying your conclusions, in that you pulled them out of your posterior.
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
1) Pewe polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left.
2) It's not as if you could read the methodology and find out what they did wrong. Oh wait, http://www.pewresearch.org/top...
3) So, we see once again, that whenever something appears on the internet which may be interpreted as critical of the right, rightwingers will appear en masse to post comments demonstrating that it is correct. In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support. qed.
You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?
That is the clear intention of the article summary, because it highlights only those issues where Democrats are more likely to agree with scientists than Republicans. A more honest summary would have also brought attention to the subjects where Democrats differ from scientists: nuclear power, pesticide use in foods and animal research, for example.
You speak truth. http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?
There is a huge group of people who's opinion is based on what the party says, I am a loyal Democrat/Republican so my stance will match what they say. There is no attention of the detail of the message nor any attempt to challenge the notion brought up. So the Democrats say Global Warming is a problem, people will blindly follow. If the Democrats say GMO foods are bad, they will blindly follow. Intelligence isn't the issue, it is just the current polarized nature of the two party system which will normally make one side right and the other wrong (assuming one side is right)
Now the Democrats vs Government view on funding. Democrats prefer more of a blanket funding in scientists, So Scientists who are funded via the Democrats policies have invested interests in that party, so they are making a living off of researching climate science due to Democrats funding, so they will be friendly to that party, and in turn that party will listen to their studies. The Republicans will more likely fund Military or Energy science. Where there is less science and more engineering. Thus you will find a lot more Right winged engineers. As their main means of living is due to Republican policy. So the Republicans will more likely push ideas of a new Military Technology or Energy Extraction technology.
It is interesting on how your political views change depending on where you are living and who is controlling your purse strings. Now they are crazies on both sides. You got the Leftist hippie type who wants to change everything to match their utopian vision where everyone is all happy because they follow one idea of a perfect life. Then you got the Far Right densest who thinks we should go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" life style, that he fondly remembers as a child (too young to realize the pressures of the world). These guys can often get into the House or Representatives thus get enough media attention to direct "The I have to do what the party says" people.
That's the cognitive style model of current US politics (my name for it anyway). Basically, all those various personality theories (Myers–Briggs, etc) can usually be collapsed along one axis; data-driven decisionmaking vs intuitive/gut feeling decision making. The set of things we call "identity politics", loyal party member, hierarchical authoritarian, all fall into the latter category. At this point in time, for whatever reasons, the political "right" has purged itself of all the data-driven folks; you buy the whole rightist program because you are a rightist or you're out. There are plenty of such people on the left also, of course, "knee jerk liberals"; but the thing is that data-driven folks are almost all now considered leftist, because if you disagree with the doctrine on AGW or Obamacare or immigration you are cast out of the right. RINO and all that. And the thing is, that the two kinds of decision making/personality do not get along well. They do not trust each other's decisions, they do not trust each other's motives, they do not trust each other personally. There is essentially no mobility between the two groups, they do not promote each other or support each other, etc. etc. etc. This is something that management consultants run into all the time; companies where the daily nitty gritty work is done by data-driven types, but the management is all gut feeling/instinctive types, and the two levels do not get along well. The prognosis for such companies is not favorable, there aren't any suggested remedies other than "try harder to get along". So, here we are in the US of 2015.
No wonder you don't work there anymore. Those machines aren't your personal toys.
http://sniff.numachi.com/pages...
Popping the capslock key loose from the keyboard.
I introduced sardines to my daughters as desert, and only give it to them as a treat. Now they enjoy an inexpensive, healthy snack when other kids demand ice cream and chocolate. If that's not a hack, then I don't know what is.
No offence, but are your kids retarded, or do you just lock them up in the basement away from any other human contact?
I find it hard to believe they don't know what "sweet" tastes like.
sweet is anything your parents restrict access to.
Being able to listen to music with your car doors open is great, if not for the dang "your keys are in the ignition. So I spend a couple hours ripping open my dash to get to the stupid thing and rip the connector loose. It was a vast improvement in the utility of my truck.
Or, you affix a small tab of sheet metal or plastic near the door light switch with a single screw so you can swivel it over so the switch thinks the door is closed..... takes 15 min. if you have an electric drill.
a) What makes you think that "we are begging for your money"? This whole issue is for giving us money so we can give it back to you (we have a budget surplus for our internal needs, we use the loans only to pay back the older loans), and by that no bankruptcy is declared (which would mean some disturbance for ALL).
b) What makes you think that buying some (much needed for our special defence needs) fleet of hovercrafts is a bad idea? Keeping ourselves capable to defend against Muslims is the best idea in the world... you (i guess you are from an EU civilized nation, since you wrote "your money") should do the same!
c) What makes you think that having Greeks protecting Europe from Muslims does not worth paying for? Only a moron can not understand this...
Whatever you do, do not try building a giant wooden statue of Mohammed and concealing your army inside and leaving it outside the Muslims' gates so they'll pull it in.
I've had it with these motherfucking eels on this motherfucking hovercraft!
I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking F train. http://gothamist.com/2015/06/2...
The irony is that some fellow Slashdoters complain all the time because i keep mention that i am Greek... all the time!
I should hope that you are Greek all the time. It would be very strange to be Greek in the morning, but Italian in the afternoon, and Russian all night.
Not at all. Let's call that situation Gretalissian. From the point of view of a native Gretalissian, it must be very strange to be Gretalissian in the morning, Italigressian in the afternoon, and Russitaligreek all night. (figure out the definitions of the other two yourself). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is just too beautiful, you're like two warships warily circling one another in the dark, unable to pinpoint each other's location.
Unfortunately our poster has you at a disadvantage; perhaps this may be of assistance. I'd like to say "Ironically, it was Monty Python all along," but I'm not sure that's a good example of irony but if it actually was then I'm even less sure I'd get away with it. :-)
No one expects the Monty Python!!! Our chief weapon is surprise!!!
Maglev with superconductors and liquid nitrogen is not very impressive?
Sorry, I disagree.
Not for a skateboard. I'd rather have a skateboard with wheels that could go on any surface than a hoverboard that required a steel surface. Of course, it would make a hell of a monorail.....
Indeed. And my programs would run a lot quicker if pi was 4. Does anyone really want pi to be anything other than 4?
Anybody remember Fortran 66? You could define numbers to be whatever you wanted. You could put
1=2
x=4/1
print x
and it would happily print out 2. Now that's the kind of powerful but cooperative computer language we need.
Infinity does not exist. Real mathematicians (ie - NOT you) only speak of numbers APPROACHING infinity. So, as the divisor approaches zero, the quotient approaches infinity. You cannot have infinity as a quantity since it does not exist. Otherwise what happens when you divide infinity by zero, and is that new infinity the same as the first infinity?
If infinity does not exist, for mathematicians, then how many integers are there? And how many points exist between 1.0001 and 1.0002 on the number line?
No, it does not equal infinity.
The Limit as x aproaches 0+ of a/x = infinity.
But the Limit as x approaches 0- of a/x = negative infinity.
because this represents a jump-discontinuity, the value of a/0 is just plain undefined.
This is like week-1 of high school precalc shit. Come on.
But +0 = -0 ; yet 1/(+0) does not equal 1/(-0) ... Omigod everything we know is wrong. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Does not compute! Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Fzzt! (Thud)
Math is not expressive enough to handle the real world, since division by zero can occur without causing a problem. Example: you want to divide apples among people. You have one apple and two people, each person gets half an apple. You have one apple and no people, no one gets the apple. In the real world there is no problem with this reasoning, it's only that math fails to handle it so you have to include extra code to make it come out. In a real life situation, you need no extra error-handling because there is no error. In conclusion, math fails to express the natural world.
Let's deliver one apple for each infinitesimal fraction of a person. (Having fractional people instead of integers here is not unrealistic; say a government declares a law that apples are to be distributed to the population such that there is one apple given for each tenth of a person). Then each person gets a really huge number of apples. Let's deliver one apple for each 2 infinitesimal fractions of a person; now each person gets half as many apples. 3 fractions, 1/3 of that huge number, etc. Hey, let's go the other way, from one apple per 1 fraction to 1 apple per zero; we know what the curve we've just plotted suggests. but you're saying it should be zero? no thanks, I prefer my math without arbitrary discontinuities and singularities.
Honestly, I think I'd prefer having pi defined as three than have division by zero return zero. My answers will at least be in the right domain even if the value is off a bit.:)
Pi is three! The Bible does not lie!
1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
It's easy to tell that the 3.14.... number is a Satanic Lie; merely add the first 144 digits. What do you get? 666!!!!!
I'm not even happy with the inaccuracy from converting integer math to floating point.
http://ta.twi.tudelft.nl/users/vuik/wi211/disasters.html
These guys would like to have a word with you.
Close enough for me.
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
We are
Look at it this way. At any given time, there are a limited number of humans who are doing something that will help the species. The rest of us, we're just the breeding stock and life support for those guys.
Its not so simple as the "evil corporations"...
Nothing simple about it, but it is significant and relevant. The amount of marketing that goes into getting people to buy "food" items, both prepared and in markets, is rivaled only by the amount of research that goes into making the food both attractive, and yet simultaneously NOT satiating. Health-wise, it's pretty much limited to the food not being legally toxic; otherwise the research that goes into processed food is pretty much the same as any other industrial chemical field, and that which goes into the raw food is more interested in making the food robust enough to survive picking, handling, and shipping than health.
And the companies which sell the stuff are dedicated to moving more and more, like any other for-profit corporation selling a product.
If all of this stuff did not move more product, the companies would not do it. They measure the cost/benefit of all this activity very accurately.
But that's the way we feed the nation now; we're not going to go back to the vast majority of Americans being small farmers. And we don't have any Plan C. All the foofraw over natural food, and healthy food, and unprocessed food, and blah blah is just a subset of the above processes, not a real commitment to putting customer's health over profit. We've been through this before, with things like adding vitamins to breakfast cereal. Does anybody believe that serves any real purpose in increasing people's health? Or is it just a good excuse people can tell themselves so they can buy the same sugar flavored cardboard their kids are trained to scream for by bright and cheery cartoon characters?
See also "naturally gluten free!" the marketing cry of just about every food product that can manage it today. Because the corporations have become convinced that they need to save America from the dread fate of consuming gluten?