Could someone please explain to me exactly what the Supreme Court does? I didn't even know that they do this kind of thing. I thought they heard cases and made rulings on the cases.
Reading the Wikipedia article on the US Supreme Court doesn't help, either. It's all about hearing cases.
They suggest that console sales have been affected by mobile games, but then they exclude portable systems--even though portable systems are more similar to the mobile game niche than home games, and would be more affected, if anything. Furthermore, mobile games are a different type of game from console games. You don't play Call of Duty on a phone.
And it's misleading to compare figures for a couple years after a system's release to lifetime figures for other platforms. The article includes a single example of non-lifetime figures (for Xbox 360), but fails to give anything else. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/... shows sales of the PS3 for the first three fiscal years to be 22.91 million (including a partial year). The article here shows PS4 sales as 35.9 million since 2013, which includes a similar partial year and is clearly greater. In other words, the Xbox One has lower sales than the 360 had back then; but the industry did not.
People under stress say and do stupid things related to the source of the stress. And bombing a plane is highly stressful. I would expect that bombers would have a high chance of going to either extreme--at one end is making bomb jokes and at the other end is being too eager to volunteer "oh, no, I don't have any bombs" when nobody even mentioned the word 'bomb' yet.
Don't think that just because it's stupid for someone with a bomb to mention it, that they won't.
The prop stays on the bottom of the ocean and doesn't move around. Unless you're specifically searching the bottom of the ocean, you wouldn't have any reason to find it when looking for living monsters.
Remember back when George Lucas built low income housing? He did it out of spite. His neighbors wouldn't let him build a film studio, so he built the housing instead and there was little they could do about it. (I haven't been following it, I don't know if his neighbors finally gave in.)
I wonder if something similar is going on here. Building housing for the homeless is a great way for someone rich to spite his neighbors. They can't complain because the area is zoned for housing and objecting to helping the homeless makes them look bad. Meanwhile you know very well the housing is going to drive property values down and cause lots of nuisance for your neighbors.
By your reasoning it would be fine to discriminate against blacks. They have a higher crime rate just like men do and I'm sure they can use one of the plenty of other ride-sharing services around, right?
It is true that the articles are only about Apple and abortion and the post mentions other digital assistants, so the poster could be spicing it up, but ultimately the source material is already social justice; the poster didn't make the whole thing up.
And the percentages of male employees at tech companies looks like it was added by the Slashdot editors. Which may support the idea that the Slashdot editors (not necessarily the poster) are doing social justice trolling.
If distilled water actually sapped minerals, consider that once it's going into your mouth it would be combining with saliva, which has a certain percentage of dissolved minerals. Going from drinking regular to distilled water would just mean going from lots of minerals+regular to lots of minerals_distilled. Either way the result from adding the saliva is pretty much the same.
I may not have been clear enough, but the example was about labelling food as made by Mexican immigrants for right-wing reasons (people don't like immigrants and would rather not buy food produced by them) rather than left-wing reasons (people like immigrants but don't want them to be exploited). Obviously labels made for left-wing reasons, such as fair trade labels, would appeal to the generally left-wing anti-GMO crowd.
It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.
No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)
This is misleading. A lot of the purchases by women consist of women buying it for family members and the person who actually plays the game is male.
Also, figures for how many "players" of games are women typically lump together casual games with the type of games that Microsoft is marketing here. Microsoft isn't trying to appeal to the Candy Crush audience.
Also, even if it actually did work, if you require the ability to hit a target as a condition of getting the license, how can they learn to hit a target in the first place? They can't get a gun permit at that point--do they have to train with water pistols?
The results make for interesting reading. To measure the accuracy of their machine, they fed it 2.3 million geotagged images from Flickr to see whether it could correctly determine their location. "PlaNet is able to localize 3.6 percent of the images at street-level accuracy and 10.1 percent at city-level accuracy," say Weyand and co. Whatâ(TM)s more, the machine determines the country of origin in a further 28.4 percent of the photos and the continent in 48.0 percent of them.
Oh,. boy, 3.6 percent. Yeah, any image, not.
(Also, 48% continent is worthless because you could get some percentage just by guessing USA or Europe each time.)
In total, PlaNet won 28 of the 50 rounds with a median localization error of 1131.7 km, while the median human localization error was 2320.75 km
This is worthless too. Not just because 1000 instead of 2000 is still pretty big, but because you could improve performance over humans just by doing things like "if you only know the country, guess the population center", which most humans won't do.
So... they want us to attack, but they can't figure out that provoking an attack will result in an attack?
They want us to attack because they figure that attacks will be ineffectual and they want ineffectual attacks that are good for propaganda. They don't want us to actually bomb them back to the Stone Age (to the degree that they're not already in the Stone Age). ISIS being ISIS, they don't understand that the difference between ineffectual attacks and being bombed to the Stone Age is due to scruples, so they don't care that their threats are eroding those scruples.
if we treat them as powerful then they will gain credibility and that will attract adherents.
If we treat them as powerful, attacking them will also gain credibility. Beheading videos may be great to recruit supporters, but they're also a great way of getting the West to accept military force used against them.
ISIS actually doesn't understand that. Middle Eastern cultures tend to assume that if they threaten the West and the West doesn't attack them, it's because of weakness, not because of scruples. Of course, sometimes it is because of weakness, but sometimes it's because we really don't like the idea of killing people and we think of war as a last resort. ISIS can barely even comprehend that, and they can't figure out that each threat makes it incrementally more likely that enough people will say "to hell with the civilian casualties, these guys are evil and they need to be bombed into rubble".
While those things are sort of true, there's a difference between doing something because it's a good idea and because it's the law. You don't hear of someone raiding a meth lab and arresting five people for unregistered possession of scientific equipment, possession of scientific equipment by a felon (never mind constructive possession), and failure to secure the equipment in an equipment safe. If it's not a law, there's no danger of someone opposed to science using the nonexistent law as a way to make the practice of science as difficult as possible.
"Historically marginalized people are now getting their legitimate say in the process" translates to "they want to be paid a bribe, at which point the construction will stop being blasphemous". It's a shakedown.
We have no business as a society stopping building on the basis of blasphemy anyway.
It is true that we do this for other subvjects, and it's genuinely useful as a first step. The problem is that the people promoting it don't understand this and don't treat it like it is.
Nobody says that teaching kids that gravity pulls things down means "kids know how to do physics", makes parents proud their kids are "learning physics", helps get more girls into physics, or increases America's competitiveness in the area of physics. We have some idea that learning that gravity pulls things down is only a small bit of physics and there's a big gap between it and actually being a physicist.
As I pointed out in the last thread, Slashdot has a bug where articles containing large numbers of nested comments don't display the later pages correctly. It's common to find articles where comment pages 1, 2, and 3 actually show the exact same comments. The bug is probably ten years or so old by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Could someone please explain to me exactly what the Supreme Court does? I didn't even know that they do this kind of thing. I thought they heard cases and made rulings on the cases.
Reading the Wikipedia article on the US Supreme Court doesn't help, either. It's all about hearing cases.
You could always download Easy RPG and use it to play any of hundreds of freeware RPG Maker 2000/2003 games. Compatibility is not perfect though.
The claim that people want "right-wing" books to win rather than just good books is basically being made up. It's not symmetrical.
They suggest that console sales have been affected by mobile games, but then they exclude portable systems--even though portable systems are more similar to the mobile game niche than home games, and would be more affected, if anything. Furthermore, mobile games are a different type of game from console games. You don't play Call of Duty on a phone.
And it's misleading to compare figures for a couple years after a system's release to lifetime figures for other platforms. The article includes a single example of non-lifetime figures (for Xbox 360), but fails to give anything else. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/... shows sales of the PS3 for the first three fiscal years to be 22.91 million (including a partial year). The article here shows PS4 sales as 35.9 million since 2013, which includes a similar partial year and is clearly greater. In other words, the Xbox One has lower sales than the 360 had back then; but the industry did not.
People under stress say and do stupid things related to the source of the stress. And bombing a plane is highly stressful. I would expect that bombers would have a high chance of going to either extreme--at one end is making bomb jokes and at the other end is being too eager to volunteer "oh, no, I don't have any bombs" when nobody even mentioned the word 'bomb' yet.
Don't think that just because it's stupid for someone with a bomb to mention it, that they won't.
The prop stays on the bottom of the ocean and doesn't move around. Unless you're specifically searching the bottom of the ocean, you wouldn't have any reason to find it when looking for living monsters.
Remember back when George Lucas built low income housing? He did it out of spite. His neighbors wouldn't let him build a film studio, so he built the housing instead and there was little they could do about it. (I haven't been following it, I don't know if his neighbors finally gave in.)
I wonder if something similar is going on here. Building housing for the homeless is a great way for someone rich to spite his neighbors. They can't complain because the area is zoned for housing and objecting to helping the homeless makes them look bad. Meanwhile you know very well the housing is going to drive property values down and cause lots of nuisance for your neighbors.
By your reasoning it would be fine to discriminate against blacks. They have a higher crime rate just like men do and I'm sure they can use one of the plenty of other ride-sharing services around, right?
There are articles; the post links to two.
It is true that the articles are only about Apple and abortion and the post mentions other digital assistants, so the poster could be spicing it up, but ultimately the source material is already social justice; the poster didn't make the whole thing up.
And the percentages of male employees at tech companies looks like it was added by the Slashdot editors. Which may support the idea that the Slashdot editors (not necessarily the poster) are doing social justice trolling.
See subject.
Other people can argue the God and family values, but I highly doubt that ISIS really wants the civilians who live in areas it controls to own guns.
ISIS wants guns for itself and its fighters, of course, but that isn't the same thing as wanting the general population to be permitted guns.
If distilled water actually sapped minerals, consider that once it's going into your mouth it would be combining with saliva, which has a certain percentage of dissolved minerals. Going from drinking regular to distilled water would just mean going from lots of minerals+regular to lots of minerals_distilled. Either way the result from adding the saliva is pretty much the same.
I may not have been clear enough, but the example was about labelling food as made by Mexican immigrants for right-wing reasons (people don't like immigrants and would rather not buy food produced by them) rather than left-wing reasons (people like immigrants but don't want them to be exploited). Obviously labels made for left-wing reasons, such as fair trade labels, would appeal to the generally left-wing anti-GMO crowd.
It's funny how nobody who ever says that then supports the idea of labelling foods "This food picked by Mexican immigrants", even though that's information that some people would certainly like to use in their purchase decisions.
No packaging can disclose every bit of information about the product, and the government picking and choosing what information the company is forced to provide, for political reasons, is not free market. (And make no mistake, "some pressure groups hate GMOs and want the government to force companies to label them" is "political reasons".)
This is misleading. A lot of the purchases by women consist of women buying it for family members and the person who actually plays the game is male.
Also, figures for how many "players" of games are women typically lump together casual games with the type of games that Microsoft is marketing here. Microsoft isn't trying to appeal to the Candy Crush audience.
Japan has a much higher population density than the US, making public transportation a lot more efficient.
Also, even if it actually did work, if you require the ability to hit a target as a condition of getting the license, how can they learn to hit a target in the first place? They can't get a gun permit at that point--do they have to train with water pistols?
Oh,. boy, 3.6 percent. Yeah, any image, not.
(Also, 48% continent is worthless because you could get some percentage just by guessing USA or Europe each time.)
This is worthless too. Not just because 1000 instead of 2000 is still pretty big, but because you could improve performance over humans just by doing things like "if you only know the country, guess the population center", which most humans won't do.
They want us to attack because they figure that attacks will be ineffectual and they want ineffectual attacks that are good for propaganda. They don't want us to actually bomb them back to the Stone Age (to the degree that they're not already in the Stone Age). ISIS being ISIS, they don't understand that the difference between ineffectual attacks and being bombed to the Stone Age is due to scruples, so they don't care that their threats are eroding those scruples.
If we treat them as powerful, attacking them will also gain credibility. Beheading videos may be great to recruit supporters, but they're also a great way of getting the West to accept military force used against them.
ISIS actually doesn't understand that. Middle Eastern cultures tend to assume that if they threaten the West and the West doesn't attack them, it's because of weakness, not because of scruples. Of course, sometimes it is because of weakness, but sometimes it's because we really don't like the idea of killing people and we think of war as a last resort. ISIS can barely even comprehend that, and they can't figure out that each threat makes it incrementally more likely that enough people will say "to hell with the civilian casualties, these guys are evil and they need to be bombed into rubble".
While those things are sort of true, there's a difference between doing something because it's a good idea and because it's the law. You don't hear of someone raiding a meth lab and arresting five people for unregistered possession of scientific equipment, possession of scientific equipment by a felon (never mind constructive possession), and failure to secure the equipment in an equipment safe. If it's not a law, there's no danger of someone opposed to science using the nonexistent law as a way to make the practice of science as difficult as possible.
"Historically marginalized people are now getting their legitimate say in the process" translates to "they want to be paid a bribe, at which point the construction will stop being blasphemous". It's a shakedown.
We have no business as a society stopping building on the basis of blasphemy anyway.
It is true that we do this for other subvjects, and it's genuinely useful as a first step. The problem is that the people promoting it don't understand this and don't treat it like it is.
Nobody says that teaching kids that gravity pulls things down means "kids know how to do physics", makes parents proud their kids are "learning physics", helps get more girls into physics, or increases America's competitiveness in the area of physics. We have some idea that learning that gravity pulls things down is only a small bit of physics and there's a big gap between it and actually being a physicist.
Does this extension work if you open in a new window, rather than in a new tab? It only claims to work with tabs.
As I pointed out in the last thread, Slashdot has a bug where articles containing large numbers of nested comments don't display the later pages correctly. It's common to find articles where comment pages 1, 2, and 3 actually show the exact same comments. The bug is probably ten years or so old by now.