Not necessarily. Some diseases show few signs at first until the suffer suddenly decompensates. That is, it appears to come on suddenly when it's actually been at a slow boil for some time, then it crosses a threshold.
Well, having had some family experience with Alzheimer's, the symptoms never came on suddenly. At first the decline was so slow that it was only in retrospect that we knew that the person was in the beginning stages of dementia.
Even then, when it was obvious that the person was having trouble, it was not a fast onset, merely a long, slow goodbye.
If you can live with the disease biological marker and without the disease, it means the biological marker does not tells us much about the disease.
Asymptomatic Alzheimer's - what will they think of next?
This whole thing smacks of an effort to get more funding. The ads will be frantically telling everyone that Alzheimer's is epidemic even through we don't always know we have it.
Reminds me of the autism epidemic, where they were trying to shoehorn more and more people into the spectrum.
Sure - I've known for a long time that most pop music is written by a few folks in Sweden, and is just a collection of hooks without actual meaning, and lots of autotune and fake emoting.
But let's not make the mistake of expecting that a news story not be made because we've personally already heard it before. Some folks haven't.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
You do know that when a final report is made, there must be a consensus on the contents. There can be minority notations, but anything I've been on starts with presentation of ideas, discussions, often subgroups, then reporting back, more discussions, the a final report. Inasmuch as the Heritage Foundation will almost certainly be in a minority, perhaps not getting any serious inclusion in the report.
Also, the outrage of the Google employees is due to the HF's position on LGBT. Which unless you see everything as LGBT, is really peripheral to AI ethics.
Or are you proposing that Ms May is going to hijack the council to turn out anti-LGBT screeds?
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
I think that the Google employees have succeeded in eliminating any free speech around this AI ethics. And apparently, the critical qualification is LGBT support. Which is a good thing in general, but destroying an attempt to have a very important meeting is some funny kind of victory.
Okay, let us turn this around. Should anyone not supportive of Trans rights be excluded from society, not allowed to express themselves. Perhaps sent to live under a bridge like registered sex offenders?
Keeping in mind - I do support LGBT rights. I just have a real problem with the muzzling of those who do not. As noted, in the letter:
Google cannot claim to support trans people and its trans employees—a population that faces real and material threats—and simultaneously appoint someone committed to trans erasure to a key AI advisory position. Given this, we call on Google to remove Kay Coles James from ATEAC."
Litmus tests! Idealogical purity. Congratulations on preventing AI ethics based on a really pe4ripheral issue. I suppose that any prospective member of any future board will need to have their entire life investigated, and perhaps swear that LGBT rights is one of their top priorities.
After all, the most important part of Artificial intelligence is LGBT politics, and we must have political purity, amirite?
As I wrote in another post, if all must have the same opinion, just have a person who is idealogically pure and acceptable write a AI manifesto, and declare the job finished - there is no need for a board at all because anything beyond one proper thinking person is redundant.
In the meantime some other group who is not so tied to rigid ideology litmus tests; who is looking for bright minds, not adherence to something almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand, will have the discussions, will come up with a set of guidelines.
And Google's employees will not have one single thing to do with it. If I were setting up such a council, I would love to have a Google representative, but would decline for all of the bullshit, with Google employees demanding that I follow their rules. My job would be to ensure that I had smart and bright minds, not get their position on their political party, abortion, or LGBT issues and kick anyone off that Google employees hate. Important issues, but not part of the work at hand.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
I've been involved in many councils and boards. There has been a wide range of opinions, and there has been people specifically selected to represent opposing viewpoints. Now why on earth would we do something that you believe is simply wrong?
Because we were trying to get something done, and understand that not only can opposing views be interesting, but that valuable insights and often compromises can be made that serve everyone..
Your approval of dissolving a council simply because some of the members have viewpoints thea you might not share not only accomplishes nothing at all, but makes for no discussion of ethics, and your enemy - the person with a different view can now go back to their constituents and truthfully say that you will not allow anything otrher than a specific agenda, and nothing else.
Yup, the opposing view can now rightfully claim that the people involved were actual prejudiced and inflexible bigots. Congratulations on pulling an embarassing defeat out of a chance to do something constructive.
Me - I'm mentally closer to the SJW's in this matter, but they have utterly failed, by demanding a specific political outlook to the exclusion of all others.
On the councils I've served on, a person with a minority viewpoint simply didn't get it included if it was anathema to the matter at hand. And explain what the Heritage Foundation's views on LGBT have to do with AI ethics?
If a person doesn't like same sex marriage, should they be excluded from society? I am all for it, I have friends who aren't. But their expertise is still their expertise.
It is rather odd that the people who would call themselves exclusive have a rather KKK level of bigotry in their makeup. Eventually people on the fringes become the same as their enemy, only difference being the words they use.
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
She was underage you pedophile. She couldn't consent. You sexually assaulted her!
Time to be ostracized as a modern witch regardless of context.
Indeed! There was actually a case of 2 4 year olds around here where a little boy and little girl were playing "doctor", and the parents of the girl called the police. The criminal case was eventually dropped because it was apparently consensual. I think the parents were sent to counseling. So fortunately we didn't have a 4 year old on the Sexual Offenders list.
I just want to interject here that conservatives have been complaining for the last 2 decades that the UN isn't a legitimate organization, and have been citing china being on the human rights council as proof of it. Bush full on suggested leaving and making our own UN, then appointed John Bolton to spit in the face of the world.
Don't pretend one side owns this sort of thing.
I've often said that the far right is in so many ways, identical to the far left. Different words, but the same attitude toward personal freedom and a fervent desire to have only one allowable opinion.
Not that any on either side would accept that. That's because they are far right and far left. One coin.
Just so happens that in this case, Google employees and other members of this board are not strong enough to have anything but far left thoughts.
That's not "hard to swallow", it's provably false. Heritage Foundation is known worldwide for being a corrupt, pro-business, anti-human organization. As was mentioned earlier upthread, it's parallel to having a convicted child molester watch your children for a week while you're away. You don't get to act surprised that your rules got violated when the person makes you aware beforehand they fully intend to violate them.
They must be incredibly powerful this Heritage foundation, like an evil villain in a Comic book. You have one kook, who all of the brave and intrepid socially concious and saitly people on the board are not capable of withstanding.
So what does she do, hold a gun on them and make them agree to torture little children or something?
Pity that the far left is so easily beaten. So weak and fragile. Not capable of withstanding any opinion other than their own. You're more like the far right than you would ever admit.
Exactly, you can't have an ethics council made up of people whose job it is to promote unethical policies. That with be an unethics council.
So what do you think is going to happen? That the kook from the Heritage Foundation is going to convince this ethics panel to make hunter-killer drones to eliminate gay people or people of differing skin pigmentation or something?
Backed by the manufacturer of the drones?
This might come as a hard pill to swallow, but if you must prevent your ideas being exposed to other people's ideas, your ideas are fatally weak.
I know that in a long career, I have taken much insight from people who have very different politics than mine, and perhaps I have given them insight as well.
They set up am AI ethics council. Some people write emails pointing out that some of the people on the council were unsuitable. Google realized they screwed up and abandoned the idea.
I see that you adhere to the one opinion only philosophy.
That always works out so good. Exposure to many opinions is never a good thing.
On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
It is pretty obvious that the employees have demanded that there is one opinion only, and that if you do not put people of that far left wing opinion, you shall not pass muster.
But that isn't a committee. There isn't much point of having a committee at all if all must march in lockstep. Just get one person who has the opinion that is allowed, and have them write a manifesto.
One of the problems with both the far right and far left is their insistence on purity of politics. But collective pants-shitting because someone from the heritage foundation is on the panel, and especially from a drone mfgr, is simply telling the world that anyone that the mob will accept and any conclusions or recommendations must be decided before any meetings.
Which of course, brings me back to the point that no committee is needed. Just get a far left person to write something condemning whatever they feel needs condemned, name a few names that they want fired from their jobs, and tidy up that little corner of the world. Then they can pat themselves on the back, and move on to the next thing they want to cry about.
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
If Microsoft wants to stop selling operating systems, and stop updating operating systems, but you've built your whole company's business model around using MS products, what will you do?.
The faithful will do as Microsoft directs. It's the BOHICA principle.
Like it or not, the PC is fading. Yes, there's always going to be use-case scenarios, but a helluva lot of consumer computing these days is happening on portable devices and consoles.
Sure. The regular folks are on tablets and smartphones. They only consume, and don't produce anything but Facebook posts.
But the "end". Not hardly. Just user shift. The regular folks don't need what a Desktop can do. The professional user can hardly work without one. I use 27 inch screens at a minimum, and my latest worker computer is a 27 inch plus a 42 inch screen. Now my iPhone has iMovie on it, but I'm in no hurry to use it. Muh fingers are too big.
MIT's vice president basically stated in a reuter's article that they are cutting ties with Huawei, etc. because of government pressure, and that they don't want to lose potential federal funding.
This has nothing to do with whether or not MIT has the capability to do competent computer investigations, and everything to do with political pressure from the US government.
Kinda depends on what you are doing. If you are dealing in anything classified, yeah - that would involve not using compromised equipment. And if the equipment is compromised, you would know what the issue is.
Yeah, read though all of the posts. Hardly a word about Huawei, and post after post after post about 'Murica. Textbook shill. Although if you aren't a shill, you are what we call a useful idiot, one who participates in trying to make this about 'murrica, and not one bit about Huawei.
So anyhow, buy one, and put economic sensitive information on it? Tell your emplopyer that since it a Huawei, you know it is safe.
Quickly my shilly shill, make it about 'murrica.
BTW, this is classic textbook deflection on your part along with the other shills. Change the subject. Get people arguing about something else.
If you've used MS DOS, then you should be able to remember when Slashdot was for Linux enthusiasts. Then you should also remember that MS was the root of all evil in those days. Then you should also know that Apple and Google are today's Microsoft, in Slashdot world.
Well, I wasn't on Slashdot until some time in the early Y2K's. By that time Applehate was well established.
"The researchers tested the taste of the plants by looking for certain compounds using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry."
instead of really tasting it? it only should taste better theoretically, there aren't any real taste test results that confirm the actual taste is actually better (even though, this is a very subjective thing).
Yeah, looks like we have some bullshit going on here. Just because there is more of a compound that has been determined to taste good doesn't mean that it wouldn't be overbearing in larger amounts, or a different ratio to other compounds.
Taste is subjective, but we gotta admit that someone has to taste something to tell what the taste is.
Here's a cooking tip:
If you are wilting cilantro in a saucepan, add a little coconut oil to it. This makes it easier to scrape that crap into the trashcan.
Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
An end to American bullying is precisely what the EU has been demanding for a *long* time. The rest of the world, too. I'm confused by the gist of this comment.
Fear not. If 'murrica is consigned to the dustbin of history, another nation will take it's place. Have we been learning Chinese? Good chance the world will be kowtowing to them.
I have a special place in my heart just for hating Apple. For you see they basically hate developers and are determined to make lives miserable for everyone who actually wants to do things professionally.
I've written a tiny little bit for iOS. Just different rules. But if you wanna hate, by all means have at it.
It isn't angst or anger, btw. It's an understanding of what kind of company Apple has been for a long time.
Sure it is. I've used Apples and Windows and before that MS-DOS for a long time. Your idea that you have some understanding of Apple's special evil merely shows you don't have an understanding of everyone elses.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. Some diseases show few signs at first until the suffer suddenly decompensates. That is, it appears to come on suddenly when it's actually been at a slow boil for some time, then it crosses a threshold.
Well, having had some family experience with Alzheimer's, the symptoms never came on suddenly. At first the decline was so slow that it was only in retrospect that we knew that the person was in the beginning stages of dementia.
Even then, when it was obvious that the person was having trouble, it was not a fast onset, merely a long, slow goodbye.
If you can live with the disease biological marker and without the disease, it means the biological marker does not tells us much about the disease.
Asymptomatic Alzheimer's - what will they think of next?
This whole thing smacks of an effort to get more funding. The ads will be frantically telling everyone that Alzheimer's is epidemic even through we don't always know we have it.
Reminds me of the autism epidemic, where they were trying to shoehorn more and more people into the spectrum.
I'm a fan of the BBC, but this is hardly "news" when there's whole book on it circa 2015... https://www.amazon.com/Song-Ma...
Sure - I've known for a long time that most pop music is written by a few folks in Sweden, and is just a collection of hooks without actual meaning, and lots of autotune and fake emoting.
But let's not make the mistake of expecting that a news story not be made because we've personally already heard it before. Some folks haven't.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
You do know that when a final report is made, there must be a consensus on the contents. There can be minority notations, but anything I've been on starts with presentation of ideas, discussions, often subgroups, then reporting back, more discussions, the a final report. Inasmuch as the Heritage Foundation will almost certainly be in a minority, perhaps not getting any serious inclusion in the report.
Also, the outrage of the Google employees is due to the HF's position on LGBT. Which unless you see everything as LGBT, is really peripheral to AI ethics.
Or are you proposing that Ms May is going to hijack the council to turn out anti-LGBT screeds?
How the fuck do you get from "someone made a persuasive argument in an email" to "you adhere to the one opinion philosophy"?
This is the kind of thing that chills free speech. Any criticism is attacked not on its merits, but merely on the basis of criticism being some kind of censorship.
I think that the Google employees have succeeded in eliminating any free speech around this AI ethics. And apparently, the critical qualification is LGBT support. Which is a good thing in general, but destroying an attempt to have a very important meeting is some funny kind of victory. Okay, let us turn this around. Should anyone not supportive of Trans rights be excluded from society, not allowed to express themselves. Perhaps sent to live under a bridge like registered sex offenders?
Keeping in mind - I do support LGBT rights. I just have a real problem with the muzzling of those who do not. As noted, in the letter:
Google cannot claim to support trans people and its trans employees—a population that faces real and material threats—and simultaneously appoint someone committed to trans erasure to a key AI advisory position. Given this, we call on Google to remove Kay Coles James from ATEAC."
Litmus tests! Idealogical purity. Congratulations on preventing AI ethics based on a really pe4ripheral issue. I suppose that any prospective member of any future board will need to have their entire life investigated, and perhaps swear that LGBT rights is one of their top priorities.
After all, the most important part of Artificial intelligence is LGBT politics, and we must have political purity, amirite?
As I wrote in another post, if all must have the same opinion, just have a person who is idealogically pure and acceptable write a AI manifesto, and declare the job finished - there is no need for a board at all because anything beyond one proper thinking person is redundant.
In the meantime some other group who is not so tied to rigid ideology litmus tests; who is looking for bright minds, not adherence to something almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand, will have the discussions, will come up with a set of guidelines.
And Google's employees will not have one single thing to do with it. If I were setting up such a council, I would love to have a Google representative, but would decline for all of the bullshit, with Google employees demanding that I follow their rules. My job would be to ensure that I had smart and bright minds, not get their position on their political party, abortion, or LGBT issues and kick anyone off that Google employees hate. Important issues, but not part of the work at hand.
If the council member's ethics are irrelevant to the decisions made by the council, then why appoint these people in the first place? Sling the janitor a few bucks to tell you right from wrong.
Clearly the ethics of the people on the council are going to shape the decisions of the council. That's extremely obvious.
I've been involved in many councils and boards. There has been a wide range of opinions, and there has been people specifically selected to represent opposing viewpoints. Now why on earth would we do something that you believe is simply wrong?
Because we were trying to get something done, and understand that not only can opposing views be interesting, but that valuable insights and often compromises can be made that serve everyone..
Your approval of dissolving a council simply because some of the members have viewpoints thea you might not share not only accomplishes nothing at all, but makes for no discussion of ethics, and your enemy - the person with a different view can now go back to their constituents and truthfully say that you will not allow anything otrher than a specific agenda, and nothing else.
Yup, the opposing view can now rightfully claim that the people involved were actual prejudiced and inflexible bigots. Congratulations on pulling an embarassing defeat out of a chance to do something constructive. Me - I'm mentally closer to the SJW's in this matter, but they have utterly failed, by demanding a specific political outlook to the exclusion of all others.
On the councils I've served on, a person with a minority viewpoint simply didn't get it included if it was anathema to the matter at hand. And explain what the Heritage Foundation's views on LGBT have to do with AI ethics?
If a person doesn't like same sex marriage, should they be excluded from society? I am all for it, I have friends who aren't. But their expertise is still their expertise.
It is rather odd that the people who would call themselves exclusive have a rather KKK level of bigotry in their makeup. Eventually people on the fringes become the same as their enemy, only difference being the words they use.
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
She was underage you pedophile. She couldn't consent. You sexually assaulted her!
Time to be ostracized as a modern witch regardless of context.
Indeed! There was actually a case of 2 4 year olds around here where a little boy and little girl were playing "doctor", and the parents of the girl called the police. The criminal case was eventually dropped because it was apparently consensual. I think the parents were sent to counseling. So fortunately we didn't have a 4 year old on the Sexual Offenders list.
I just want to interject here that conservatives have been complaining for the last 2 decades that the UN isn't a legitimate organization, and have been citing china being on the human rights council as proof of it. Bush full on suggested leaving and making our own UN, then appointed John Bolton to spit in the face of the world.
Don't pretend one side owns this sort of thing.
I've often said that the far right is in so many ways, identical to the far left. Different words, but the same attitude toward personal freedom and a fervent desire to have only one allowable opinion.
Not that any on either side would accept that. That's because they are far right and far left. One coin.
Just so happens that in this case, Google employees and other members of this board are not strong enough to have anything but far left thoughts.
That's not "hard to swallow", it's provably false. Heritage Foundation is known worldwide for being a corrupt, pro-business, anti-human organization. As was mentioned earlier upthread, it's parallel to having a convicted child molester watch your children for a week while you're away. You don't get to act surprised that your rules got violated when the person makes you aware beforehand they fully intend to violate them.
They must be incredibly powerful this Heritage foundation, like an evil villain in a Comic book. You have one kook, who all of the brave and intrepid socially concious and saitly people on the board are not capable of withstanding.
So what does she do, hold a gun on them and make them agree to torture little children or something?
Pity that the far left is so easily beaten. So weak and fragile. Not capable of withstanding any opinion other than their own. You're more like the far right than you would ever admit.
Geo-Blocking is how we protect ourselves from you.
Exactly, you can't have an ethics council made up of people whose job it is to promote unethical policies. That with be an unethics council.
So what do you think is going to happen? That the kook from the Heritage Foundation is going to convince this ethics panel to make hunter-killer drones to eliminate gay people or people of differing skin pigmentation or something?
Backed by the manufacturer of the drones?
This might come as a hard pill to swallow, but if you must prevent your ideas being exposed to other people's ideas, your ideas are fatally weak.
I know that in a long career, I have taken much insight from people who have very different politics than mine, and perhaps I have given them insight as well.
Didn't RTFA I see.
They set up am AI ethics council. Some people write emails pointing out that some of the people on the council were unsuitable. Google realized they screwed up and abandoned the idea.
I see that you adhere to the one opinion only philosophy.
That always works out so good. Exposure to many opinions is never a good thing.
On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
It is pretty obvious that the employees have demanded that there is one opinion only, and that if you do not put people of that far left wing opinion, you shall not pass muster.
But that isn't a committee. There isn't much point of having a committee at all if all must march in lockstep. Just get one person who has the opinion that is allowed, and have them write a manifesto.
One of the problems with both the far right and far left is their insistence on purity of politics. But collective pants-shitting because someone from the heritage foundation is on the panel, and especially from a drone mfgr, is simply telling the world that anyone that the mob will accept and any conclusions or recommendations must be decided before any meetings.
Which of course, brings me back to the point that no committee is needed. Just get a far left person to write something condemning whatever they feel needs condemned, name a few names that they want fired from their jobs, and tidy up that little corner of the world. Then they can pat themselves on the back, and move on to the next thing they want to cry about.
p.s. I'm just hoping that #metoo doesn't find out about how Annie Smith and I kissed on the playground when we were in third grade. It was her idea, but I hear regret sexual assault is promoted these days. #keepingalowprofile
If Microsoft wants to stop selling operating systems, and stop updating operating systems, but you've built your whole company's business model around using MS products, what will you do?.
The faithful will do as Microsoft directs. It's the BOHICA principle.
Like it or not, the PC is fading. Yes, there's always going to be use-case scenarios, but a helluva lot of consumer computing these days is happening on portable devices and consoles.
Sure. The regular folks are on tablets and smartphones. They only consume, and don't produce anything but Facebook posts.
But the "end". Not hardly. Just user shift. The regular folks don't need what a Desktop can do. The professional user can hardly work without one. I use 27 inch screens at a minimum, and my latest worker computer is a 27 inch plus a 42 inch screen. Now my iPhone has iMovie on it, but I'm in no hurry to use it. Muh fingers are too big.
Everyone will be a consumer, and no one will develop. There is no need for programmers any more.
MIT's vice president basically stated in a reuter's article that they are cutting ties with Huawei, etc. because of government pressure, and that they don't want to lose potential federal funding.
This has nothing to do with whether or not MIT has the capability to do competent computer investigations, and everything to do with political pressure from the US government.
Kinda depends on what you are doing. If you are dealing in anything classified, yeah - that would involve not using compromised equipment. And if the equipment is compromised, you would know what the issue is.
Oooo, I'm a shill now.
Yeah, read though all of the posts. Hardly a word about Huawei, and post after post after post about 'Murica. Textbook shill. Although if you aren't a shill, you are what we call a useful idiot, one who participates in trying to make this about 'murrica, and not one bit about Huawei.
So anyhow, buy one, and put economic sensitive information on it? Tell your emplopyer that since it a Huawei, you know it is safe.
Quickly my shilly shill, make it about 'murrica.
BTW, this is classic textbook deflection on your part along with the other shills. Change the subject. Get people arguing about something else.
Me?I'm just happy trolling you, Shill out.
If you've used MS DOS, then you should be able to remember when Slashdot was for Linux enthusiasts. Then you should also remember that MS was the root of all evil in those days. Then you should also know that Apple and Google are today's Microsoft, in Slashdot world.
Well, I wasn't on Slashdot until some time in the early Y2K's. By that time Applehate was well established.
"The researchers tested the taste of the plants by looking for certain compounds using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry."
instead of really tasting it? it only should taste better theoretically, there aren't any real taste test results that confirm the actual taste is actually better (even though, this is a very subjective thing).
Yeah, looks like we have some bullshit going on here. Just because there is more of a compound that has been determined to taste good doesn't mean that it wouldn't be overbearing in larger amounts, or a different ratio to other compounds.
Taste is subjective, but we gotta admit that someone has to taste something to tell what the taste is.
Here's a cooking tip:
If you are wilting cilantro in a saucepan, add a little coconut oil to it. This makes it easier to scrape that crap into the trashcan.
This also works for kale.
Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!
Oh, wait...
Yeah, but 'Murrica something something something.
Can't win this one my friend, the shills will pounce on you like crocodiles on a wildebeest.
even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
An end to American bullying is precisely what the EU has been demanding for a *long* time. The rest of the world, too. I'm confused by the gist of this comment.
Fear not. If 'murrica is consigned to the dustbin of history, another nation will take it's place. Have we been learning Chinese? Good chance the world will be kowtowing to them.
I have a special place in my heart just for hating Apple. For you see they basically hate developers and are determined to make lives miserable for everyone who actually wants to do things professionally.
I've written a tiny little bit for iOS. Just different rules. But if you wanna hate, by all means have at it.
Also, lots of slashdotters hate Apple.
We've done so for a long, long time.
It isn't angst or anger, btw. It's an understanding of what kind of company Apple has been for a long time.
Sure it is. I've used Apples and Windows and before that MS-DOS for a long time. Your idea that you have some understanding of Apple's special evil merely shows you don't have an understanding of everyone elses.