and let me help you on your quest to optimize away redundancy in the english language:
``I assumed he lived in a smaller place right now than the house he is going to buy.": `right now' is redundant as `now' would be sufficient. ``I don't boot that often myself": `myself' is clearly redundant. ``and the OS will cache hard drive content in RAM (buffers/cache)": obvious.
Dr. John Adler, professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Stanford University, collaborated with the Chinese researchers on the publication and is listed as a co-author. While he does not advocate the surgery and did not perform it, he believes it can provide valuable information about how the nucleus accumbens works, and how best to attempt to manipulate it. “I do think it’s worth learning from,” he says. ” As far as I’m concerned, ablation of the nucleus accumbens makes no sense for anyone. There’s a very high complication rate. [But] reporting it doesn’t mean endorsing it. While we should have legitimate ethical concerns about anything like this, it is a bigger travesty to put our heads in the sand and not be willing to publish it,” he says. cite.
speaking as an introvert, this is a false dichotomy. there's some truth to what you're saying, but overall it's just something introverts comfort themselves with, to feel like they have some kind of integrity, and to put off overcoming their limitations. of course, before i go on, i must say that extraverts have limitations as well.
i've known several extremely successful people who define their self worth in terms of what they can do, but challenge themselves by living and exhibiting it with their peers. they actively mentor those who are (at the moment) less accomplished, and they seek mentorship from those who are moreso. their extraversion leads to more utility and challenge of their own abilities.
this is not to say that extraversion is a superior strategy; there are those who, as you say, begin to define themselves through the shallow. also, extraverts can be annoyingly grating and pompous to their introverted peers who nonetheless ``walk softly and carry a big stick." every person they snub with their antics will be more inclined to vote against them when evaluations come around.
so, the challenge of the extravert is to not be a grating prick, while the challenge of the introvert is to benefit from other people. stereotypes like you present are only good in seeing the challenge; they are not the right way to live.
is there a summary of the whole banning posters thing? i hear about it often enough to pique my interest, but get lost in the drama when i try to find out more.
are we talking dozens, or hundreds, or what? and what were their sins?
``I am a free market type of guy... but I have never considered this type of collusion before."
no shit. try doing some homework. here is a quote from that rampant communist, Adam Smith:
``People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." — book I, ch. 10, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published 1776.
so... in the castle rock v. gonzales case, we have the supreme court taking a federalist position (can't sue a town under a federal statute), which is something libertarians generally like (smaller government and laboratory of the states and all that). at the same time, you're using that case to argue that public services are ineffective, because they aren't enforced at the federal level.
which one is it going to be, then? you can't have it both ways. (well, actually you can, but only because no one stops to think about it.)
there's nothing stopping the individual states from, you know, requiring a duty of their police to provide public services to individual citizens. the warren v. district of columbia case was, unsurprisingly, restricted to the district of columbia, which is infamously fucked up anyway. any state, and d.c., could trivially legislate a greater duty to its police. but of course that would cost money, and the libertarians would crow on and on about how we should instead have private security for rich people.
yes, he did mean that; they showed it many times, but for some reason it didn't change the power of the soundbite.
it was still a brilliant way to misdirect, of course; since mobs can't respond coherently to even the most smarmy of replies, this moved the topic from `government/corporate merger benefitting the rich,' which is an important bipartisan issue, to literally saying `corporations are corporations' as though it's not a tautology.
the mob had their soundbite defused in front of their eyes; it's like a judo match with a six-year old down syndrome patient.
but, of course, people didn't end up voting for that.
the legal concept here is "duty of care." contrary to slashdot's weird assumption that the law works like a 20-line perl script, there are actually millennia worth of common sense and observations about human nature baked in. wiring a shotgun to your door breaches duty of care almost unquestionably. after all, you're responsible for having the foresight that the victim of your booby trap might well be a policeman or emt who's coming there to save your miserable ass. see, intent matters in law, so even if it's a thief who gets his head blown off (assuming this is legal itself), this will weigh against you.
electric fence gets a little fuzzier (although keep in mind that there are quite often two sides to these tort cases, one of which is usually suppressed when someone is trying to be an alarmist twat), but it's still plausible that a child could be hurt, or stunned leading to further injury. requiring warning placards is not unreasonable imho, but i won't argue it here. the point is, driverless cars are further away from electric fences, than electric fences are from head-level shotguns.
so, what happens with driverless cars? all you can really do is either buy one or not unless you do some serious hacking (these things are going to have some hard-core code signing implemented for liability reasons), at which point you're entirely liable if that's the cause of a problem. apart from that, once they are standard commercial items, i don't think there will be much room for user liability. there might be a few very rare cases, but almost by design, you will have basically zero choice in how the vehicle is operated unless you've reprogrammed it with a very large axe. this is as opposed to shotguns and electric fences.
there are other issues of course, but i don't think the scenarios you state are really comparable. even though torts have gotten pretty ridiculous in the u.s., there's still method to the madness which you don't get if you just listen to rush limbaugh.
and the remaining 0.001% would, and probably do, pay him quite a generous sum for commissioned work. i'm sure he'd have a comfortable life as long as he has the freedom to associate with certain aesthetes and like-minded individuals.
but don't worry! raving antisemites aren't left out in the cold; something like this might be more your style. there's plenty of that too.
how is it coveting or stealing to want the money to go to charity? i agree that they have no obligation to give to charity or to the user, and i do think that they are providing a valid service, but i still wouldn't call such a desire covetous or thieving.
never mind that i'm an atheist, so those commandments don't hold absolute weight anyway; and that zuckerberg himself seems pretty damned covetous in many ways and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
i'm just wondering, and i think it's vaguely disturbing that moral judgement at all that isn't purely profitable is called "stealing." apart from that, i agree with the substance of your post completely.
google+ is free to use because they track you. it's easier to sign up, because they (think they) can track you over a greater range of services. they can crosscorrelate youtube, picasa (if anyone still uses it), gmail, blogger, and a bunch of other things.
meanwhile, all facebook has is facebook, and instagram i guess. oh, and tagtile, glancee, karma, face.com and threadsy. whatever the fuck those are.
yeah and that couldn't possibly be a special hard-coded case, could it?
adding "sex" worked for "blowjob," which is what the poster was asking about. obviously other suffixes may be required in other cases. go fuck yourself and die in a fire.
more strict, maybe, but no thanks to hershey's and several other industry groups who (unsuccessfully) lobbied like hell to get the fda to relax its definition to allow hydrogenated vegetable oils, circa 2007-09.
soy lecithin doesn't replace cocoa butter; it's an additive in relatively small amounts that makes the mouthfeel smoother/creamier. the snobbiest of chocolates don't use soy lecithin, but some good chocolates do, not just mass market crap.
the bigger problem is hydrogenated vegetable oil replacing cocoa butter. hating that doesn't make you a snob, it just means that your taste buds are functional.
really? the brand took a hit for me when they started repeating previous games in the recent bundles. i'm actually glad that they've admitted that they've now exhausted the pool of indie non-drm games. what else could they do?
to me, at least, the drm was a very minor detail of the humble bundle. cross-platform; price; charity; and indie were all much more important to me. i don't even have the choice of using this one (no windows), but i don't begrudge them for it; i didn't buy the "three games we've offered before and two crappy new ones" bundles either.
yeah, and? it's the "original price," not the "usual price." the original price is always the list price; that's normal, and list prices have been inflated so that they can be "discounted" for about a century now. nothing new here.
lol. bayesian stats is so popular now that "bayesian" has come to mean simply "statistics." to wit, significance is a frequentist concept, not bayesian.
the bayesian analogue of significance testing is the bayes factor.
it's not an excuse, it's more like an elaboration, or an insight into what losing weight (and maintaining a lower weight) will feel like.
there are many recent studies indicating that maintaining a lower weight after having had a higher weight is really more difficult than maintaining the same low weight without having been heavier. it seems that the body has a set point for how much to eat which is either impossible or very difficult to reset once a high caloric intake has been achieved.
assuming for the moment that these studies are correct, this isn't an excuse unless you want to interpret it as one; rather, it can be very useful to keep in mind so as to not get discouraged. more importantly, it informs you that even once you achieve the lower weight, you're not done; for many years or the rest of your life, you will still need to maintain a greater level of discipline than some others. it's unfortunate, but knowing that in advance can really only help.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, i'm familiar with that. sickening, to be sure, but it seems different, in that it was (probably) already done by the time we learned about it.
this is complicity from square one. i dunno, it just seems different to me.
you mean ``would work though."
and let me help you on your quest to optimize away redundancy in the english language:
``I assumed he lived in a smaller place right now than the house he is going to buy.": `right now' is redundant as `now' would be sufficient.
``I don't boot that often myself": `myself' is clearly redundant.
``and the OS will cache hard drive content in RAM (buffers/cache)": obvious.
Dr. John Adler, professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Stanford University, collaborated with the Chinese researchers on the publication and is listed as a co-author. While he does not advocate the surgery and did not perform it, he believes it can provide valuable information about how the nucleus accumbens works, and how best to attempt to manipulate it. “I do think it’s worth learning from,” he says. ” As far as I’m concerned, ablation of the nucleus accumbens makes no sense for anyone. There’s a very high complication rate. [But] reporting it doesn’t mean endorsing it. While we should have legitimate ethical concerns about anything like this, it is a bigger travesty to put our heads in the sand and not be willing to publish it,” he says. cite.
uh... yeah.
speaking as an introvert, this is a false dichotomy. there's some truth to what you're saying, but overall it's just something introverts comfort themselves with, to feel like they have some kind of integrity, and to put off overcoming their limitations. of course, before i go on, i must say that extraverts have limitations as well.
i've known several extremely successful people who define their self worth in terms of what they can do, but challenge themselves by living and exhibiting it with their peers. they actively mentor those who are (at the moment) less accomplished, and they seek mentorship from those who are moreso. their extraversion leads to more utility and challenge of their own abilities.
this is not to say that extraversion is a superior strategy; there are those who, as you say, begin to define themselves through the shallow. also, extraverts can be annoyingly grating and pompous to their introverted peers who nonetheless ``walk softly and carry a big stick." every person they snub with their antics will be more inclined to vote against them when evaluations come around.
so, the challenge of the extravert is to not be a grating prick, while the challenge of the introvert is to benefit from other people. stereotypes like you present are only good in seeing the challenge; they are not the right way to live.
is there a summary of the whole banning posters thing? i hear about it often enough to pique my interest, but get lost in the drama when i try to find out more.
are we talking dozens, or hundreds, or what? and what were their sins?
thx.
``I am a free market type of guy... but I have never considered this type of collusion before."
no shit. try doing some homework. here is a quote from that rampant communist, Adam Smith:
``People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." — book I, ch. 10, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published 1776.
so... in the castle rock v. gonzales case, we have the supreme court taking a federalist position (can't sue a town under a federal statute), which is something libertarians generally like (smaller government and laboratory of the states and all that). at the same time, you're using that case to argue that public services are ineffective, because they aren't enforced at the federal level.
which one is it going to be, then? you can't have it both ways. (well, actually you can, but only because no one stops to think about it.)
there's nothing stopping the individual states from, you know, requiring a duty of their police to provide public services to individual citizens. the warren v. district of columbia case was, unsurprisingly, restricted to the district of columbia, which is infamously fucked up anyway. any state, and d.c., could trivially legislate a greater duty to its police. but of course that would cost money, and the libertarians would crow on and on about how we should instead have private security for rich people.
yes, he did mean that; they showed it many times, but for some reason it didn't change the power of the soundbite.
it was still a brilliant way to misdirect, of course; since mobs can't respond coherently to even the most smarmy of replies, this moved the topic from `government/corporate merger benefitting the rich,' which is an important bipartisan issue, to literally saying `corporations are corporations' as though it's not a tautology.
the mob had their soundbite defused in front of their eyes; it's like a judo match with a six-year old down syndrome patient.
but, of course, people didn't end up voting for that.
the legal concept here is "duty of care." contrary to slashdot's weird assumption that the law works like a 20-line perl script, there are actually millennia worth of common sense and observations about human nature baked in. wiring a shotgun to your door breaches duty of care almost unquestionably. after all, you're responsible for having the foresight that the victim of your booby trap might well be a policeman or emt who's coming there to save your miserable ass. see, intent matters in law, so even if it's a thief who gets his head blown off (assuming this is legal itself), this will weigh against you.
electric fence gets a little fuzzier (although keep in mind that there are quite often two sides to these tort cases, one of which is usually suppressed when someone is trying to be an alarmist twat), but it's still plausible that a child could be hurt, or stunned leading to further injury. requiring warning placards is not unreasonable imho, but i won't argue it here. the point is, driverless cars are further away from electric fences, than electric fences are from head-level shotguns.
so, what happens with driverless cars? all you can really do is either buy one or not unless you do some serious hacking (these things are going to have some hard-core code signing implemented for liability reasons), at which point you're entirely liable if that's the cause of a problem. apart from that, once they are standard commercial items, i don't think there will be much room for user liability. there might be a few very rare cases, but almost by design, you will have basically zero choice in how the vehicle is operated unless you've reprogrammed it with a very large axe. this is as opposed to shotguns and electric fences.
there are other issues of course, but i don't think the scenarios you state are really comparable. even though torts have gotten pretty ridiculous in the u.s., there's still method to the madness which you don't get if you just listen to rush limbaugh.
and the remaining 0.001% would, and probably do, pay him quite a generous sum for commissioned work. i'm sure he'd have a comfortable life as long as he has the freedom to associate with certain aesthetes and like-minded individuals.
but don't worry! raving antisemites aren't left out in the cold; something like this might be more your style. there's plenty of that too.
people have had this `idea' ever since the first spam was sent.
it's an obvious idea; it just used to be impractical because email's value was openness and decentralization. facebook fixes that little problem.
so, i'm just surprised facebook hasn't patented it.
how is it coveting or stealing to want the money to go to charity? i agree that they have no obligation to give to charity or to the user, and i do think that they are providing a valid service, but i still wouldn't call such a desire covetous or thieving.
never mind that i'm an atheist, so those commandments don't hold absolute weight anyway; and that zuckerberg himself seems pretty damned covetous in many ways and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
i'm just wondering, and i think it's vaguely disturbing that moral judgement at all that isn't purely profitable is called "stealing." apart from that, i agree with the substance of your post completely.
facebook is free to use because they track you.
google+ is free to use because they track you. it's easier to sign up, because they (think they) can track you over a greater range of services. they can crosscorrelate youtube, picasa (if anyone still uses it), gmail, blogger, and a bunch of other things.
meanwhile, all facebook has is facebook, and instagram i guess. oh, and tagtile, glancee, karma, face.com and threadsy. whatever the fuck those are.
maybe it's because they want to actually have some measurable return on their money.
most? or most of the ones you hear about incessantly on slashdot?
yeah and that couldn't possibly be a special hard-coded case, could it?
adding "sex" worked for "blowjob," which is what the poster was asking about. obviously other suffixes may be required in other cases. go fuck yourself and die in a fire.
append "sex" to the query. problem solved.
and the grammar checker too, apparently.
more strict, maybe, but no thanks to hershey's and several other industry groups who (unsuccessfully) lobbied like hell to get the fda to relax its definition to allow hydrogenated vegetable oils, circa 2007-09.
after failing to get away with it, hershey's changed many of their bars to mockolate anyway. for example, mr. goodbar is now "made with chocolate and peanuts" instead of "peanuts in milk chocolate".
soy lecithin doesn't replace cocoa butter; it's an additive in relatively small amounts that makes the mouthfeel smoother/creamier. the snobbiest of chocolates don't use soy lecithin, but some good chocolates do, not just mass market crap.
the bigger problem is hydrogenated vegetable oil replacing cocoa butter. hating that doesn't make you a snob, it just means that your taste buds are functional.
really? the brand took a hit for me when they started repeating previous games in the recent bundles. i'm actually glad that they've admitted that they've now exhausted the pool of indie non-drm games. what else could they do?
to me, at least, the drm was a very minor detail of the humble bundle. cross-platform; price; charity; and indie were all much more important to me. i don't even have the choice of using this one (no windows), but i don't begrudge them for it; i didn't buy the "three games we've offered before and two crappy new ones" bundles either.
yeah, and? it's the "original price," not the "usual price." the original price is always the list price; that's normal, and list prices have been inflated so that they can be "discounted" for about a century now. nothing new here.
lol. bayesian stats is so popular now that "bayesian" has come to mean simply "statistics." to wit, significance is a frequentist concept, not bayesian.
the bayesian analogue of significance testing is the bayes factor.
it's not an excuse, it's more like an elaboration, or an insight into what losing weight (and maintaining a lower weight) will feel like.
there are many recent studies indicating that maintaining a lower weight after having had a higher weight is really more difficult than maintaining the same low weight without having been heavier. it seems that the body has a set point for how much to eat which is either impossible or very difficult to reset once a high caloric intake has been achieved.
assuming for the moment that these studies are correct, this isn't an excuse unless you want to interpret it as one; rather, it can be very useful to keep in mind so as to not get discouraged. more importantly, it informs you that even once you achieve the lower weight, you're not done; for many years or the rest of your life, you will still need to maintain a greater level of discipline than some others. it's unfortunate, but knowing that in advance can really only help.