Oh, you missed the part where the answer was "give Gawker more money so we don't go bankrupt".
The fall in journalistic quality is easy to blame on "SJW!", but that's just a symptom. The larger problem is the abandonment of any pretense of objectivity or journalistic integrity by all the mainstream outlets. For most, any scandal involving a Democrat "isn't newsworthy" or "is a local story" or if the story won't die it can be dismissed as a GOP hit job. Swap that for Fox and the rest.
Stories that "carry the desired narrative" are run without even the thinnest shred of editorial fact-checking, while stories that oppose the narrative are simply buried. This was particularly egregious during the Iraq War, when for example a blatantly-Photoshopped image of a burning hospital (the smoke from a nearby building that was hit was just copy-pasted to make the hospital look like is was burning too) was published by AP and run by a great number of newspapers. Even a glance at the image showed it to be fake - you can't just duplicate smoke for goodness sake - but everyone ran it because everyone was against the US being there, and wanted us to be the villains.
"Truthiness" has replaced truth in journalism, and it's not SJWs or the left or Fox, it's everyone. Turns out people won't pay much for low-quality fiction, and revenue is tanking everywhere. It's not "the internet", it's the "politics first" approach. There's way more entertaining fiction out there, with way better special effects than poorly-Photoshopped images.
fewer people is a bad thing for capitalism, because it requires exponential growth, perpetually and unconditionally.
No, capitalism doesn't require that. Capitalism is just any system where ownership of the means of production can be acquired by buying them, as opposed by to military conquest, or by political favoritism. The stock market likes to see growth, but then a falling market just makes it cheaper to acquire ownership of the means of production.
No, a growing population is not required for perpetual exponential growth. Technology provides perpetual exponential growth, per capita, while using fewer resources per widget. Debt-financed governments require growing populations.
We've decided that we can't do better than this awesome system
I know of no one who actually believes this. The common belief is "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for everything else that's ever been tried". That's certainly my belief. There must be something better, but temporarily providing a better standard of living through ever-ballooning debt (e.g., European Socialism except Norway) or by massive exports of natural resources (e.g., Norway) ain't it - those just aren't sustainable plans. Not that Americas plan of not providing a better standard of living while still ballooning the debt is better, mind you.
Just so. It's all about the cost-to-orbit IMO. And to go beyond high orbit, it's mostly about the cost to get fuel into orbit. I do think mankind will be traveling the Solar System one day, and not just sending robots, but we're not going to get very far without near-free fuel available in orbit. And that of course requires making it there from asteroids.
Robotics has moved so far in the past 20 years that this no longer seems like a fantasy. Turning a CHON asteroid into a fuel depot opens up the Solar System to us, and the hard part of that isn't getting an asteroid parked someplace convenient, but the difficulty of make fuel out of it. The process itself isn't overly complicated, but the robotics needed to do so nearly autonomously is beyond us. It no longer seems like an unapproachable problem now, however, from self-driving cars to increasingly automated manufacturing, it seems like we're nearly there.
SpaceX is doing things that have already been done. They aren't breaking major new technical ground. They are breaking new economic ground by improving already existing technology. Don't get me wrong, that's SUPER important but SpaceX isn't going to send us to Mars
Well, TFA insists that the main obstacle to going to Mars is cost (which is another way of spelling funding). SpaceX is focused only on a part of that, launch costs, but dropping the price-to-orbit of 1 kg by an order of magnitude would make a huge difference in space exploration, whether human or robot. It may be a necessary part of going to Mars, given the funding environment.
Really? Humans can improvise and adapt? So the human is supposed to build a mass spectrometer out of duct tape and discarded food pouches?
It like you've never seen a SciFi movie, or something.
Humans just simply cannot compare, gram for gram.
Depends on the goal. You were responding to a post about "the science", and in that context, sure, that's clear. But I've never seen that as the point of the space program - science is a happy byproduct.
The point is to inspire. To inspire people to care about science and engineering. To inspire people to think beyond their neighborhood or nation. To inspire people to want to become scientists. It takes humans on grand adventures to do this.
Cruz looks pretty bad, when you actually pay attention
I have started paying attention. I was favorably impressed by his ad on the illegal immigration problem: it was humorous, it showed the "DC elite" in a bad light instead of showing immigrants in a bad light (it didn't show immigrants at all, let alone try to paint them as bad people). That's good stuff.
I want a candidate who can say the words "illegal immigration" and "Islamic terrorist", but is making rational points about those real problems, not playing up racism for votes from the cheap seats. I want someone to say "we're all immigrants in America, it's not about immigrants, it's about securing the border" and presents some plan that recognizes we need immigrant labor, but maybe we want to control how much. I want someone to say "Islamic terrorism is a growing problem, that doesn't mean we hate Islam, that means we'll be rational about how we address terrorism as a whole", and presents some plan that Bruce Shneier would like (man, he nails it in that article).
I love it when Democrats whine that Republicans are too zealous with police powers, then turn around and try to one-up them.
It's all a game: we're tricked into blaming each other, instead of actually fighting back against ever-growing state power. Any general election of "establishment Democrat" vs "establishment Republican" is an election the voters have already lost. The real battle is at the primaries, and the primaries are happening soon. Look's like we'll be spared "Bush vs Clinton" but "Rubio vs Clinton" is about the same.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Sanders. I'd take either of them in a heartbeat over "more of the same"! (Cruz looks less crazy than I'd figured - maybe it's just the contrast with Trump but I'm re-considering him).
No, I'm sure Netflix doesn't care -- probably because they know they can't do anything about it, and because it's not really hurting their bottom line.
The Netflix CEO recently gave a speech as CIS where he said "sharing is good". They're happy with multiple people watching a screen, they're happy with parents sharing their password with kids (and the multi-screen option looks cheap to me), because they know people would rather have their own accounts, and likely will when they stop being broke students.
There are many alternative theories about what dark matter is. All the evidence, from multiple independent sources, limits this to "some kind of matter, not moving fast like neutrinos do".
The failure of the few attempts at detectors doesn't contradict that at all. It simply rules out categories of hypotheses about what sort of particles might make up dark matter. There's really isn't some "settled" idea about that - there are many, competing ideas.
Well, really they don't know that it will work. They're building a hyper-sensitive detector for particle interactions along the same lines as neutrino detectors. They can be sure it will detect very infrequent interactions, and they know what neutrinos look like, so they're hoping for anything else.
Of course, if dark matter doesn't interact with familiar matter* at all, or only does so at higher energy levels than matter drifting through the Solar system, it won't find anything.
*I almost said "normal matter, but dark matter is normal matter, while the stuff we're familiar with is the corner case.
I installed Win 10 on my Surface 3. After the 'upgrade', every time i pressed the power button, it locked the screen requiring a password to unlock, NO MATTER WHAT I SET POWER SETTINGS TO.. Kind of kills its usefulness as a tablet with that function broken. Windows 10 made my device LESS useful, but please dont let me interfere with your trolling......
If anyone knows a fix for this, please post! I have no use for a tablet where I ever have to type in my password to use it.
Citation needed. Actually, no, don't bother. That's just bullshit.
Never had a romantic evening? I mean, yes, this is Slashdot and such lack of experience is expected, sure, but usually people at least understand the concept.
The general (or governor) owns the culture: the sense everyone has of what's normal, acceptable behavior, and what deserves the attention of somewhere higher on the chain. The base commander owns "implementing" that culture - if there's a pattern of behavior not in line with the culture, it's his problem. Notice I say "culture", not "regulations", as the former is what people actually do.
If this sort of obfuscation is normal in NJ, if it's the expectation that anything embarrassing should be hidden from the public by whatever excuse works, then that is really the governor's responsibility. While I can't say for sure that's the culture of the NJ bureaucracy, it's not a crazy suggestion.
He's the strongly-establoshment candidate. If you like how the government treats people, vote for him for more of it. If you'd like some reform, that basically any GOP candidate other than him and Bush. Cruz is straddling the border but he might try to make some changes, while Trump would randomize everything, and the others fall somewhere in between.
Most of the people I work with have never seen a Star Wars movie. For them, this is great, because they don't see it as a silly JJ rehash of what they've already seen. And it's not like the movie is badly made - for all the nerdrage, it a JJ Abrams move: of course the writing sucks and there's no character arcs, who cares, it's got well directed action, and that's shockingly rare in the movies these days.
Well, they don't let you become a cop if your IQ is too high (though I question your anecdote). Seriously, a cop's biggest risk of being shot is with his own gun.
Anakin was juvenile in the first movie. JarJar was barely annoying by comparison. And anyhow, one juvenile character in the movie would have been OK -- kids can like the movie too -- but it was an overload of juvenile.
Padme and Anakin in the meadow
Thankfully, I recognized that as the perfect time to recycle my Diet Coke, and so I missed the whole scene in the meadow.
Meh, I never really bought either of them. If movies have taught me one thing: you don't get better at combat without a training montage. You gotta have a montage!
No, no, no! On the TARDIS, you reverse the polarity of the neutron flux. (Jon Pertwee had trouble with the technobabble, but he liked "reverse the polarity of the neutron flux" because it has poetic meter, so he said it in several episodes.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, stopped reading here.
Oh, you missed the part where the answer was "give Gawker more money so we don't go bankrupt".
The fall in journalistic quality is easy to blame on "SJW!", but that's just a symptom. The larger problem is the abandonment of any pretense of objectivity or journalistic integrity by all the mainstream outlets. For most, any scandal involving a Democrat "isn't newsworthy" or "is a local story" or if the story won't die it can be dismissed as a GOP hit job. Swap that for Fox and the rest.
Stories that "carry the desired narrative" are run without even the thinnest shred of editorial fact-checking, while stories that oppose the narrative are simply buried. This was particularly egregious during the Iraq War, when for example a blatantly-Photoshopped image of a burning hospital (the smoke from a nearby building that was hit was just copy-pasted to make the hospital look like is was burning too) was published by AP and run by a great number of newspapers. Even a glance at the image showed it to be fake - you can't just duplicate smoke for goodness sake - but everyone ran it because everyone was against the US being there, and wanted us to be the villains.
"Truthiness" has replaced truth in journalism, and it's not SJWs or the left or Fox, it's everyone. Turns out people won't pay much for low-quality fiction, and revenue is tanking everywhere. It's not "the internet", it's the "politics first" approach. There's way more entertaining fiction out there, with way better special effects than poorly-Photoshopped images.
fewer people is a bad thing for capitalism, because it requires exponential growth, perpetually and unconditionally.
No, capitalism doesn't require that. Capitalism is just any system where ownership of the means of production can be acquired by buying them, as opposed by to military conquest, or by political favoritism. The stock market likes to see growth, but then a falling market just makes it cheaper to acquire ownership of the means of production.
No, a growing population is not required for perpetual exponential growth. Technology provides perpetual exponential growth, per capita, while using fewer resources per widget. Debt-financed governments require growing populations.
We've decided that we can't do better than this awesome system
I know of no one who actually believes this. The common belief is "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for everything else that's ever been tried". That's certainly my belief. There must be something better, but temporarily providing a better standard of living through ever-ballooning debt (e.g., European Socialism except Norway) or by massive exports of natural resources (e.g., Norway) ain't it - those just aren't sustainable plans. Not that Americas plan of not providing a better standard of living while still ballooning the debt is better, mind you.
Just so. It's all about the cost-to-orbit IMO. And to go beyond high orbit, it's mostly about the cost to get fuel into orbit. I do think mankind will be traveling the Solar System one day, and not just sending robots, but we're not going to get very far without near-free fuel available in orbit. And that of course requires making it there from asteroids.
Robotics has moved so far in the past 20 years that this no longer seems like a fantasy. Turning a CHON asteroid into a fuel depot opens up the Solar System to us, and the hard part of that isn't getting an asteroid parked someplace convenient, but the difficulty of make fuel out of it. The process itself isn't overly complicated, but the robotics needed to do so nearly autonomously is beyond us. It no longer seems like an unapproachable problem now, however, from self-driving cars to increasingly automated manufacturing, it seems like we're nearly there.
SpaceX is doing things that have already been done. They aren't breaking major new technical ground. They are breaking new economic ground by improving already existing technology. Don't get me wrong, that's SUPER important but SpaceX isn't going to send us to Mars
Well, TFA insists that the main obstacle to going to Mars is cost (which is another way of spelling funding). SpaceX is focused only on a part of that, launch costs, but dropping the price-to-orbit of 1 kg by an order of magnitude would make a huge difference in space exploration, whether human or robot. It may be a necessary part of going to Mars, given the funding environment.
Really? Humans can improvise and adapt? So the human is supposed to build a mass spectrometer out of duct tape and discarded food pouches?
It like you've never seen a SciFi movie, or something.
Humans just simply cannot compare, gram for gram.
Depends on the goal. You were responding to a post about "the science", and in that context, sure, that's clear. But I've never seen that as the point of the space program - science is a happy byproduct.
The point is to inspire. To inspire people to care about science and engineering. To inspire people to think beyond their neighborhood or nation. To inspire people to want to become scientists. It takes humans on grand adventures to do this.
Cruz looks pretty bad, when you actually pay attention
I have started paying attention. I was favorably impressed by his ad on the illegal immigration problem: it was humorous, it showed the "DC elite" in a bad light instead of showing immigrants in a bad light (it didn't show immigrants at all, let alone try to paint them as bad people). That's good stuff.
I want a candidate who can say the words "illegal immigration" and "Islamic terrorist", but is making rational points about those real problems, not playing up racism for votes from the cheap seats. I want someone to say "we're all immigrants in America, it's not about immigrants, it's about securing the border" and presents some plan that recognizes we need immigrant labor, but maybe we want to control how much. I want someone to say "Islamic terrorism is a growing problem, that doesn't mean we hate Islam, that means we'll be rational about how we address terrorism as a whole", and presents some plan that Bruce Shneier would like (man, he nails it in that article).
I love it when Democrats whine that Republicans are too zealous with police powers, then turn around and try to one-up them.
It's all a game: we're tricked into blaming each other, instead of actually fighting back against ever-growing state power. Any general election of "establishment Democrat" vs "establishment Republican" is an election the voters have already lost. The real battle is at the primaries, and the primaries are happening soon. Look's like we'll be spared "Bush vs Clinton" but "Rubio vs Clinton" is about the same.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Sanders. I'd take either of them in a heartbeat over "more of the same"! (Cruz looks less crazy than I'd figured - maybe it's just the contrast with Trump but I'm re-considering him).
No, I'm sure Netflix doesn't care -- probably because they know they can't do anything about it, and because it's not really hurting their bottom line.
The Netflix CEO recently gave a speech as CIS where he said "sharing is good". They're happy with multiple people watching a screen, they're happy with parents sharing their password with kids (and the multi-screen option looks cheap to me), because they know people would rather have their own accounts, and likely will when they stop being broke students.
I think he gets it.
For all intensive purposes, I was on US soil
Given you were on a base, I assume you meant "for all in tents, and porpoises".
There are many alternative theories about what dark matter is. All the evidence, from multiple independent sources, limits this to "some kind of matter, not moving fast like neutrinos do".
The failure of the few attempts at detectors doesn't contradict that at all. It simply rules out categories of hypotheses about what sort of particles might make up dark matter. There's really isn't some "settled" idea about that - there are many, competing ideas.
Well, really they don't know that it will work. They're building a hyper-sensitive detector for particle interactions along the same lines as neutrino detectors. They can be sure it will detect very infrequent interactions, and they know what neutrinos look like, so they're hoping for anything else.
Of course, if dark matter doesn't interact with familiar matter* at all, or only does so at higher energy levels than matter drifting through the Solar system, it won't find anything.
*I almost said "normal matter, but dark matter is normal matter, while the stuff we're familiar with is the corner case.
I installed Win 10 on my Surface 3. After the 'upgrade', every time i pressed the power button, it locked the screen requiring a password to unlock, NO MATTER WHAT I SET POWER SETTINGS TO.. Kind of kills its usefulness as a tablet with that function broken. Windows 10 made my device LESS useful, but please dont let me interfere with your trolling......
If anyone knows a fix for this, please post! I have no use for a tablet where I ever have to type in my password to use it.
Considering that programmers (in the U.S.) skew heavily in that direction
Let's see:
* Current job: 5% while male
* previous job: 20%
* previous job: 1% (just me)
* previous job: 3%
I work on the West coast, and almost everyone I work with is from India or China. Where do you work?
I put in dozen or so Cree bulbs almost 3 years ago, and none of them have had any problems since. That's better than I ever got with CFLs.
Citation needed. Actually, no, don't bother. That's just bullshit.
Never had a romantic evening? I mean, yes, this is Slashdot and such lack of experience is expected, sure, but usually people at least understand the concept.
The general (or governor) owns the culture: the sense everyone has of what's normal, acceptable behavior, and what deserves the attention of somewhere higher on the chain. The base commander owns "implementing" that culture - if there's a pattern of behavior not in line with the culture, it's his problem. Notice I say "culture", not "regulations", as the former is what people actually do.
If this sort of obfuscation is normal in NJ, if it's the expectation that anything embarrassing should be hidden from the public by whatever excuse works, then that is really the governor's responsibility. While I can't say for sure that's the culture of the NJ bureaucracy, it's not a crazy suggestion.
He's the strongly-establoshment candidate. If you like how the government treats people, vote for him for more of it. If you'd like some reform, that basically any GOP candidate other than him and Bush. Cruz is straddling the border but he might try to make some changes, while Trump would randomize everything, and the others fall somewhere in between.
Clouded by the dark side, our senses are.
Meh, apparently the stats don't back that up.
Most of the people I work with have never seen a Star Wars movie. For them, this is great, because they don't see it as a silly JJ rehash of what they've already seen. And it's not like the movie is badly made - for all the nerdrage, it a JJ Abrams move: of course the writing sucks and there's no character arcs, who cares, it's got well directed action, and that's shockingly rare in the movies these days.
Well, they don't let you become a cop if your IQ is too high (though I question your anecdote). Seriously, a cop's biggest risk of being shot is with his own gun.
Anakin was juvenile in the first movie. JarJar was barely annoying by comparison. And anyhow, one juvenile character in the movie would have been OK -- kids can like the movie too -- but it was an overload of juvenile.
Padme and Anakin in the meadow
Thankfully, I recognized that as the perfect time to recycle my Diet Coke, and so I missed the whole scene in the meadow.
Meh, I never really bought either of them. If movies have taught me one thing: you don't get better at combat without a training montage. You gotta have a montage!
Are you seriously arguing revenue as a measure of quality for popular entertainment?
No, no, no! On the TARDIS, you reverse the polarity of the neutron flux. (Jon Pertwee had trouble with the technobabble, but he liked "reverse the polarity of the neutron flux" because it has poetic meter, so he said it in several episodes.)