I would say both ideas are about how the best way to the change the world with out encountering overwhelming opposition is to do so piece by piece. Slowly going after the low hanging fruit, making yourself stronger and weakening and opposition that could form. in the comments example you would pre-emptively go after the unpopular and non-powerful religions. getting rid as many, who would of joined a concerted opposition, silently as you can.
"Designed for security products don't just have to be good. They have to be beyond reproach"
Bullshit. The term is used to designate that at least some minimal amount of effort was used to make the program secure, but not only is a perfect unhackable program impossible but you also get what you pay for. No one expects the $29.99 piece of software with that label to magically have better security than the DoD.
Well I am sure they did not solve all their problems with Murder. For example I do not think they killed every single trade unionist. And probably did many things like just removing the law allowing/protecting trade unions.
Which is fine, but we don't tax charity/non-profit organizations. And a properly run church easily falls within the bounds of non-profit. I completely agree that we should get rid of blanket trust of churches because there is corruption in a lot of them. But we should not expect to get very many taxes from them at all. If church pays anything above some very very minimal amount it should be an alarm to its attenders and everyone else that it is corrupt. Churches operate mostly on donations, and those donations are no longer medieval tithes, that went to supplement the income earned by the church's brothels, they are expected to go to help the community and other people in need.
So if you have access to a lot of random numbers RNG can use these truly random numbers to generate some decently random numbers? So what, RNG is a formula that takes in random numbers and makes them less random?
Well most people would have enough sense to have someone else win the lottery. In fact the best way would probably be to just sell the number to a middle man who would take a cut of some complete stranger who never even heard of the inside guy.
Assuming that this study is pointing out a real thing, and is in general terms correct, I see two main possible causes.
1) Teachers teach how they learnt and understand the content. So will obviously be better teachers to those who learn in the same way they do. Which could possibly be highly correlated to genetics and race (and therefore more casually correlated to general skin color and to perception of race).
2) We already know that there is an innate pre-programmed distrust, hatred, and fear of difference. If we view ourselves as from a different social/economic/cultural/ and in particular genetic group from someone else we will obviously be more stressed around them if nothing else. And these feelings are likely going to lead to reduced learning ability.
We have moved away from viewing race in that way. Tiger Woods is any ethnicity that he chooses to be, at any given time. And I think that that is the most likely avenue through which the added success is brought about, Students will do better if they believe that they are being taught by their race, regardless of if the person is generically far more different form them than some other-raced children in the same class (who are doing worse because of their perceived difference). Yes, their might very well be a significant factor that a teacher teaches as they learnt themselves, which is most likely to correlate to how genetically similar people will best learn the same stuff. But I personally am bending towards a more generic psychological reason. The more different someone looks to you the more fear, anger and mistrust you will have towards them and the more stress you will have in their presence; Which will interfere with the learning process.
So we have a study that proves that hiring African/Hispanic/Asian teachers will necessarily hurt the education of the majority.
So what do we do? We go out and hire as many African/Hispanic/Asian teachers as possible?
And they directly employ millions, and indirectly support entire industries of many many million and millions more. It might actually be a better return on investment for numbers of employed per dollar.
They set this up at universities, so the start ups they are creating are going to be Amazon/Google likes where a 5 billion dollar company can employ 3 guys. A university is filled with the privileged, highly skilled, rich 1%. You will not going to employ hundreds of working stiffs out of a university; You will employ one or two guys in a tech focused highly automated business.
I imagine they already do this sort of think in the UK? From my understanding in their laws defamation happens even if you can prove that the opinion is factual and honestly put forth in good faith.
Which misses the point entirely. Our ancestors were the huddled ramble looking for a better life. Immigration practices now, and H1B1 in particular, are about refusing the huddled ramble looking for a better life and letting in the rich, powerful, and highly skilled. The only sort of people who could make a difference in their home country.
Which misses the point entirely. And if you were not allowed to come work in America, New Delhi, or whatever, would become the tech center of the world; Or at least shared that distinction to a greater degree. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. America sucking the top 1% of talent from India does it nothing but harm. These are the people who would otherwise have enticed companies into India or created their own tech companies.
I agree contently. And any well run individual will have put awaycapital out of every paycheck and have enough liquidity to get through a tough spot with mortgage payments and food if something unexpected happened. This is often referred to as a hit by the bus disaster. We do not know what might happen, but there are a number of things that can happen and require a lot of money to get through. Maybe you were hit my a bus, and the insurance is trying to weasel out of it, or your employment situation changed and you are unable to get a job for months. Luckily for them government and private help abound, but are not always instant and are not ubiquitous.
And yet people can just live by the seat of their pants, yes it is more dangerous but it is possible, because the government has been putting money away incase you lose your job. The government does nothing for the corporation who loses an employee.
Well more like it makes sense to have redundant employees so that no single one can cost you big by moving out. But then all things equal the company who pays for redundant talent will go bankrupt competing with the company that has just coasted on luck for the last decade or less.
I think that is a little biased. Not only are you presumably making more money for your employer than you yourself make, but often an entire organisation requires all of its members to work together or it grinds to a halt. Even a rather unimportant employee suddenly not being at the job could put dozens or hundreds of other employees out of wack and cost millions in productivity in a just a few days. Hell a single subway train driver walking out might cost a city billions in lost productivity, if they did not plan for the exact situation. And there are far more social services available to the out of work individual while the corporation who lost a worker and lost millions has nothing.
Seriously. I live in a dutch area of Canada. Dutch as far as the eye can see. They are all rather short... I cannot imagine any Europeans being anywhere as big as some of those African tribes. Are we sure this is some some article hanging around from April first?
Slashdot Mirror
I would say both ideas are about how the best way to the change the world with out encountering overwhelming opposition is to do so piece by piece. Slowly going after the low hanging fruit, making yourself stronger and weakening and opposition that could form. in the comments example you would pre-emptively go after the unpopular and non-powerful religions. getting rid as many, who would of joined a concerted opposition, silently as you can.
"Designed for security products don't just have to be good. They have to be beyond reproach" Bullshit. The term is used to designate that at least some minimal amount of effort was used to make the program secure, but not only is a perfect unhackable program impossible but you also get what you pay for. No one expects the $29.99 piece of software with that label to magically have better security than the DoD.
Well I am sure they did not solve all their problems with Murder. For example I do not think they killed every single trade unionist. And probably did many things like just removing the law allowing/protecting trade unions.
Which is fine, but we don't tax charity/non-profit organizations. And a properly run church easily falls within the bounds of non-profit. I completely agree that we should get rid of blanket trust of churches because there is corruption in a lot of them. But we should not expect to get very many taxes from them at all. If church pays anything above some very very minimal amount it should be an alarm to its attenders and everyone else that it is corrupt. Churches operate mostly on donations, and those donations are no longer medieval tithes, that went to supplement the income earned by the church's brothels, they are expected to go to help the community and other people in need.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
That he got away with visiting the toilet between every single move up to now.
So if you have access to a lot of random numbers RNG can use these truly random numbers to generate some decently random numbers? So what, RNG is a formula that takes in random numbers and makes them less random?
Well most people would have enough sense to have someone else win the lottery. In fact the best way would probably be to just sell the number to a middle man who would take a cut of some complete stranger who never even heard of the inside guy.
So acting auditions should be done blind with a voice modulator? The next Blade will be played by a 12 year old Asian girl in blackface?
Assuming that this study is pointing out a real thing, and is in general terms correct, I see two main possible causes.
1) Teachers teach how they learnt and understand the content. So will obviously be better teachers to those who learn in the same way they do. Which could possibly be highly correlated to genetics and race (and therefore more casually correlated to general skin color and to perception of race).
2) We already know that there is an innate pre-programmed distrust, hatred, and fear of difference. If we view ourselves as from a different social/economic/cultural/ and in particular genetic group from someone else we will obviously be more stressed around them if nothing else. And these feelings are likely going to lead to reduced learning ability.
We have moved away from viewing race in that way. Tiger Woods is any ethnicity that he chooses to be, at any given time. And I think that that is the most likely avenue through which the added success is brought about, Students will do better if they believe that they are being taught by their race, regardless of if the person is generically far more different form them than some other-raced children in the same class (who are doing worse because of their perceived difference). Yes, their might very well be a significant factor that a teacher teaches as they learnt themselves, which is most likely to correlate to how genetically similar people will best learn the same stuff. But I personally am bending towards a more generic psychological reason. The more different someone looks to you the more fear, anger and mistrust you will have towards them and the more stress you will have in their presence; Which will interfere with the learning process.
So we have a study that proves that hiring African/Hispanic/Asian teachers will necessarily hurt the education of the majority. So what do we do? We go out and hire as many African/Hispanic/Asian teachers as possible?
And they directly employ millions, and indirectly support entire industries of many many million and millions more. It might actually be a better return on investment for numbers of employed per dollar.
They set this up at universities, so the start ups they are creating are going to be Amazon/Google likes where a 5 billion dollar company can employ 3 guys. A university is filled with the privileged, highly skilled, rich 1%. You will not going to employ hundreds of working stiffs out of a university; You will employ one or two guys in a tech focused highly automated business.
I for one welcome our new Radioactive Transforming Robotic Overlords.
This. In my Software Engineering class there were two main groups of failing students. The stoners, and the WOWers.
You have to be pretty deluded to believe that something the impairs cognitive ability has any chance of revealing truth.
I imagine they already do this sort of think in the UK? From my understanding in their laws defamation happens even if you can prove that the opinion is factual and honestly put forth in good faith.
Which misses the point entirely. Our ancestors were the huddled ramble looking for a better life. Immigration practices now, and H1B1 in particular, are about refusing the huddled ramble looking for a better life and letting in the rich, powerful, and highly skilled. The only sort of people who could make a difference in their home country.
Which misses the point entirely. And if you were not allowed to come work in America, New Delhi, or whatever, would become the tech center of the world; Or at least shared that distinction to a greater degree. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. America sucking the top 1% of talent from India does it nothing but harm. These are the people who would otherwise have enticed companies into India or created their own tech companies.
I agree contently. And any well run individual will have put awaycapital out of every paycheck and have enough liquidity to get through a tough spot with mortgage payments and food if something unexpected happened. This is often referred to as a hit by the bus disaster. We do not know what might happen, but there are a number of things that can happen and require a lot of money to get through. Maybe you were hit my a bus, and the insurance is trying to weasel out of it, or your employment situation changed and you are unable to get a job for months. Luckily for them government and private help abound, but are not always instant and are not ubiquitous.
And yet people can just live by the seat of their pants, yes it is more dangerous but it is possible, because the government has been putting money away incase you lose your job. The government does nothing for the corporation who loses an employee.
Well more like it makes sense to have redundant employees so that no single one can cost you big by moving out. But then all things equal the company who pays for redundant talent will go bankrupt competing with the company that has just coasted on luck for the last decade or less.
I think that is a little biased. Not only are you presumably making more money for your employer than you yourself make, but often an entire organisation requires all of its members to work together or it grinds to a halt. Even a rather unimportant employee suddenly not being at the job could put dozens or hundreds of other employees out of wack and cost millions in productivity in a just a few days. Hell a single subway train driver walking out might cost a city billions in lost productivity, if they did not plan for the exact situation. And there are far more social services available to the out of work individual while the corporation who lost a worker and lost millions has nothing.
Farming country. At least that is who owns the farms around London.
Seriously. I live in a dutch area of Canada. Dutch as far as the eye can see. They are all rather short... I cannot imagine any Europeans being anywhere as big as some of those African tribes. Are we sure this is some some article hanging around from April first?