I'm a doctoral student at the same school. I know how much money she makes, and how she got the job: pandering to another Chinese. The same bastard who strung me along for two years (and would have continued) before I burned out.
Never trust a Chinese. Any apparent benevolence on their part is pretended, and not a single one would hesitate to throw a non-Chinese to the wolves for a couple of pennies. Everything they say about jews, is actually true about the Chinese.
Whatever. I had to explain disk images to a fucking Ivy League professor (a young one, not some doddering 80-year-old). People are fucking stupid. Especially Christians.
Well, yeah, I guess it could be used to influence the jury into making unwarranted assumptions and generalizations. I wouldn't call that a "good argument".
If the Wii doesn't have any evidence, then there is nothing to exclude.
I don't think that warrants get voided en toto, due to one (rather trivial) error. Even if it's argued that the Wii was "seized", does this mean anything at all, since there was no evidence on it (nor much expectation for there to be)?
I'm sure that every schmuck with a Netflix account would be willing to adhere to your stupid rules, and saddened by your unwillingness to pontificate on how you'd change human behavior.
Seriously, this is what Netflix would be if it were invented by Stalin.
The intelligent people (well, at least the ones who also had enough time to come close to winning...) have good research jobs already.
I've also heard that, even before they won the prize, they were selling some of their tangential/spin-off ideas to Netflix... The prize seems to have been more of a trigger.
The rank-and-file workers of modern mega-corporations are basically welfare recipients. Their tangible day-to-day contributions, if there in fact are any, are dispersed through a miasma of powerpoints and politics. Reward is likewise twisted as it mapped through this noise. This patent/methodology is not surprising at all; in fact I find it rather fascinating, in that it's a black-and-white acceptance of the fact that most employees are superfluous.
I think they're referring to an extrapolation from the not-self-aware/sentient argument in support of abortion rights. Y'see, very young born children don't appear to develop these traits until they're several months old. Thus, if this were the sole argument for abortion (which it isn't), the two would be logically equivalent.
Of course two things may be logically equivalent, but one may support one but abhor the other. It happens fairly often. Aesthetics is alive and well.
The comparison is absurd. In the first days of steel, better alternatives were unimaginable. By the 60s, it was a pure matter of financial unwillingness. Here is a statement: the acceptable cost (to your profession) to neutralize or mollify the negative externalities of the chemical industry was truly minimal (much less than 1% of total operating cost). Refute that, if you want to convince me of anything.
I think we agree on everything, except that you ought to accept a little bit more responsibility. You (yes, you as an engineer; i.e., a steward of implementation; not a pure intellectual discovering first principles) should have taken greater precautions over what was going on, while the next generation might have over-reacted. Overall, we must face the fact that you were smart enough to do something in principle, while the detractors aren't necessarily.
Anyway, now "we" get to reconcile things, with people like you calling any level of concern for consequences an abdication of our responsibility (as you did above); while the other side considers "chemical" to be a synonym to "poison". To hell with both. Let the Chinese choke on effluent, while we figure out how to do things correctly, the first time for a change.
Yes, now they've fixed things. This was in response to a counter-movement which is still slowing things down.
I don't have utopia in mind; I just see the irrational anti-science movement as a partially understandable response to some unnecessarily horrific stuff which science was firmly in bed with.
It's funny, you say that massive pollution was necessary, although there is certainly no proof. I mean, clearly we are capable of running regulated industries, and they are mostly capable of sustaining our life now. Why, exactly, was it not possible to do this back then? It's hard for me to believe that the technology didn't exist at all; it's more that "we" (that is, the leaders of industry) didn't care, and this precipitated something of an intellectual crisis. We could have short-circuited a lot of irrational protesting. I think we could be several years ahead of where we are now; and have not had various disasters.
The poor brown people in question were the inhabitants of Bhopal. My point was basically that, by way of the industry of the time, science became directly and strongly associated with economically-callous and implicitly-racist disregard for human life and limb. It didn't have to be that way, and this was at least partly responsible for an anti-science backlash at various intellectual levels.
Gee, maybe we shouldn't have polluted the rivers until they caught on fire; and maybe we should have installed some safety measures in those fertilizer plants even though they'd only kill/maim poor brown people, when they happened to explode.
Who would have thought there would be a social cost to all of this further down the line...? Surely running industry as a terrifying dehumanized process is the right and sustainable thing to do!
Sure, and no one liked Crystal Pepsi either. But they should be able to go ahead and try to sell the watered-down internet (presumably for cheaper, unless they can make up a clever ad campaign to make it desirable somehow), as long as they don't call it "internet".
It seems inevitable to me, that a state of "eternal vigilance" will be necessary in net neutrality, to keep good intentions in government intervention from favoring the big players. See, for example, food labeling rules which are at stake to be sabotaged by big lobbies as a tool to keep smaller businesses out. The truly conservative stance, imho, would be to define "internet" as what we have now; and allow companies to try to sell KiddieSafeWatchedOverNet under different names. Essentially, giving "internet" something similar to AOC (appellation d'origin controllee) status.
Several libertarians have stated claims that there is no real reason besides accident that they are associated with the right more than the left. One might say, the left wants a kingdom but the right wants a military dictatorship.
True conservatism means, to me, a sort of "principled suspicion" that there are reasons why apparent improvements have not been implemented earlier. The suspicion being that there are hidden or secondary negative implications, the details of which are in history.
I am no scholar of this, but I believe the neoconservative victory was basically to ditch this form of conservatism, somewhat ironically by using arguments that "conservatism", in not having its own agenda, was intellectually empty and "doomed" to just resist the dominant form of progressivism in the left. Thus, they basically succeeded in identifying the word "conservatism" with their own form of progressive agenda. In this sense, neoconservatism is essentially a palace built on a foundation of lies and word-games.
I think this is one of those cases where, once the problem comes up, any solution is bad. Kind of like net neutrality; once the idea of eroding a common standard comes up, any "solution" is either going to be too restrictive, or too permissive. For some reason, true conservatism is impossible.
I didn't get the "Tycho" part of the reference. Damned public school education didn't mention the pennames of the guys who write the Penny Arcade comic, even once!
I've heard from a physicist, that we have only so much easily refinable uranium/plutonium to last until 2050 or so. Wikipedia says 100 years which, while not a reason to stop doing it, seems pretty low to me. After that we'd have to go to lower-yield thorium fuel cycle (breeder) reactors which would last a while.
Of course he's not a nuclear physicist/engineer. Anyone have the scoop? Would these current power plant designs be adaptable?
I don't think they're looking for standard users, and kind of the whole point was to create a learning curve. This implies that it's targeted at powerusers and developers. With the script-integration, this could be useful for quickly churning out a limited-use kiosk with a few helper apps or something (e.g. a novelty photo booth with web integration).
Slashdot Mirror
Sort-of nitpicking: there's no apostrophe in "Rainbows". This is semi-important to the story.
He was an atheist. Close enough.
You did it to yourselves, you fucking moron.
I'm a doctoral student at the same school. I know how much money she makes, and how she got the job: pandering to another Chinese. The same bastard who strung me along for two years (and would have continued) before I burned out.
Never trust a Chinese. Any apparent benevolence on their part is pretended, and not a single one would hesitate to throw a non-Chinese to the wolves for a couple of pennies. Everything they say about jews, is actually true about the Chinese.
Yes, her position is enviable I suppose.
Whatever. I had to explain disk images to a fucking Ivy League professor (a young one, not some doddering 80-year-old). People are fucking stupid. Especially Christians.
Well, yeah, I guess it could be used to influence the jury into making unwarranted assumptions and generalizations. I wouldn't call that a "good argument".
If the Wii doesn't have any evidence, then there is nothing to exclude.
I don't think that warrants get voided en toto, due to one (rather trivial) error. Even if it's argued that the Wii was "seized", does this mean anything at all, since there was no evidence on it (nor much expectation for there to be)?
My imagination is failing me.
How could this be used to advantage by the defense?
I'm sure that every schmuck with a Netflix account would be willing to adhere to your stupid rules, and saddened by your unwillingness to pontificate on how you'd change human behavior.
Seriously, this is what Netflix would be if it were invented by Stalin.
The intelligent people (well, at least the ones who also had enough time to come close to winning...) have good research jobs already.
I've also heard that, even before they won the prize, they were selling some of their tangential/spin-off ideas to Netflix... The prize seems to have been more of a trigger.
IGTT 0.1/10.
Keep trying!
The innovation will come from acquiring startups.
The rank-and-file workers of modern mega-corporations are basically welfare recipients. Their tangible day-to-day contributions, if there in fact are any, are dispersed through a miasma of powerpoints and politics. Reward is likewise twisted as it mapped through this noise. This patent/methodology is not surprising at all; in fact I find it rather fascinating, in that it's a black-and-white acceptance of the fact that most employees are superfluous.
I think they're referring to an extrapolation from the not-self-aware/sentient argument in support of abortion rights. Y'see, very young born children don't appear to develop these traits until they're several months old. Thus, if this were the sole argument for abortion (which it isn't), the two would be logically equivalent.
Of course two things may be logically equivalent, but one may support one but abhor the other. It happens fairly often. Aesthetics is alive and well.
The comparison is absurd. In the first days of steel, better alternatives were unimaginable. By the 60s, it was a pure matter of financial unwillingness. Here is a statement: the acceptable cost (to your profession) to neutralize or mollify the negative externalities of the chemical industry was truly minimal (much less than 1% of total operating cost). Refute that, if you want to convince me of anything.
I think we agree on everything, except that you ought to accept a little bit more responsibility. You (yes, you as an engineer; i.e., a steward of implementation; not a pure intellectual discovering first principles) should have taken greater precautions over what was going on, while the next generation might have over-reacted. Overall, we must face the fact that you were smart enough to do something in principle, while the detractors aren't necessarily.
Anyway, now "we" get to reconcile things, with people like you calling any level of concern for consequences an abdication of our responsibility (as you did above); while the other side considers "chemical" to be a synonym to "poison". To hell with both. Let the Chinese choke on effluent, while we figure out how to do things correctly, the first time for a change.
Yes, now they've fixed things. This was in response to a counter-movement which is still slowing things down.
I don't have utopia in mind; I just see the irrational anti-science movement as a partially understandable response to some unnecessarily horrific stuff which science was firmly in bed with.
It's funny, you say that massive pollution was necessary, although there is certainly no proof. I mean, clearly we are capable of running regulated industries, and they are mostly capable of sustaining our life now. Why, exactly, was it not possible to do this back then? It's hard for me to believe that the technology didn't exist at all; it's more that "we" (that is, the leaders of industry) didn't care, and this precipitated something of an intellectual crisis. We could have short-circuited a lot of irrational protesting. I think we could be several years ahead of where we are now; and have not had various disasters.
The poor brown people in question were the inhabitants of Bhopal. My point was basically that, by way of the industry of the time, science became directly and strongly associated with economically-callous and implicitly-racist disregard for human life and limb. It didn't have to be that way, and this was at least partly responsible for an anti-science backlash at various intellectual levels.
Gee, maybe we shouldn't have polluted the rivers until they caught on fire; and maybe we should have installed some safety measures in those fertilizer plants even though they'd only kill/maim poor brown people, when they happened to explode.
Who would have thought there would be a social cost to all of this further down the line...? Surely running industry as a terrifying dehumanized process is the right and sustainable thing to do!
Sure, and no one liked Crystal Pepsi either. But they should be able to go ahead and try to sell the watered-down internet (presumably for cheaper, unless they can make up a clever ad campaign to make it desirable somehow), as long as they don't call it "internet".
It seems inevitable to me, that a state of "eternal vigilance" will be necessary in net neutrality, to keep good intentions in government intervention from favoring the big players. See, for example, food labeling rules which are at stake to be sabotaged by big lobbies as a tool to keep smaller businesses out. The truly conservative stance, imho, would be to define "internet" as what we have now; and allow companies to try to sell KiddieSafeWatchedOverNet under different names. Essentially, giving "internet" something similar to AOC (appellation d'origin controllee) status.
Several libertarians have stated claims that there is no real reason besides accident that they are associated with the right more than the left. One might say, the left wants a kingdom but the right wants a military dictatorship.
True conservatism means, to me, a sort of "principled suspicion" that there are reasons why apparent improvements have not been implemented earlier. The suspicion being that there are hidden or secondary negative implications, the details of which are in history.
I am no scholar of this, but I believe the neoconservative victory was basically to ditch this form of conservatism, somewhat ironically by using arguments that "conservatism", in not having its own agenda, was intellectually empty and "doomed" to just resist the dominant form of progressivism in the left. Thus, they basically succeeded in identifying the word "conservatism" with their own form of progressive agenda. In this sense, neoconservatism is essentially a palace built on a foundation of lies and word-games.
I think this is one of those cases where, once the problem comes up, any solution is bad. Kind of like net neutrality; once the idea of eroding a common standard comes up, any "solution" is either going to be too restrictive, or too permissive. For some reason, true conservatism is impossible.
I didn't get the "Tycho" part of the reference. Damned public school education didn't mention the pennames of the guys who write the Penny Arcade comic, even once!
I've heard from a physicist, that we have only so much easily refinable uranium/plutonium to last until 2050 or so. Wikipedia says 100 years which, while not a reason to stop doing it, seems pretty low to me. After that we'd have to go to lower-yield thorium fuel cycle (breeder) reactors which would last a while.
Of course he's not a nuclear physicist/engineer. Anyone have the scoop? Would these current power plant designs be adaptable?
black power for ammunition
So he was playing a yankee, huh?
Maybe he was dehydrated?
I don't think they're looking for standard users, and kind of the whole point was to create a learning curve. This implies that it's targeted at powerusers and developers. With the script-integration, this could be useful for quickly churning out a limited-use kiosk with a few helper apps or something (e.g. a novelty photo booth with web integration).
Anyway, the price is right.
Free-fall isn't entirely sure, but pretty close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall#Surviving_falls
Certainly better than the car accident, even under "optimal" conditions.