>>"But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin."
A scientist should understand evolution sufficiently well to not use arguments like this.
Why are we carbon based and not silica based? Either works just fine. Evolution doesn't pick the "best" option, it picks a "functional" option. After something has proven to function, evolution stops caring (until it no longer functions). Why iron and not copper in our blood? Either works fine.
Why quantum critical "bio"molecules? Because they work. There is NO other criteria. They could be better than the alternative, they could be worse, they could be the same. But they work. That is all we can assert.
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?
I don't know, is att a big owner of content, like time warner an their ilk? Maybe they are trying to deferentiate from the competition. Seems like a good strategy to me.
It looks like fast lanes and slow lanes to me, just from a different perspective. Of course, if I'm wrong, and they build a better protocol for torrent traffic, I'm all for it. Improvements are great, and necessary.
If the new tactic is to simply prioritise torrent traffic, then it's a fast lane. What's the difference between prioritising 9 types of traffic and throttling the 10th? None at all. This could just as well be used to throttle unwanted traffic (let's say WB starts prioritising everything *except* torrent traffic).
Much like an overly broad law, it's great when it's used to improve the things we care about, but it could just as easily be used for the opposite. And should this new *great* idea be used as an argument to curtail the net neutrality rules (let's allow fast lanes but not slow lanes instead of banning both types), then you can expect the opposite usecase to come about shortly.
The one thing I'm certain of is that AT&T will happily screw you over for a dime, and any consumer-friendly initiative from them should be scoured under the looking glass several times over for the devils signature.
Smoking is pretty close to the worst thing you can do if you wish to lead a long and pleasant life (including the endgame). Smoking has an unwanted effect on almost every cancer probability (including cervical/breast cancer for you women), every bronco-, cardio-, aortic-, pharyngeal- (all kinds), and endocrine- disease available (to name *but a few*). If this wasn't enough, the damage caused is from the smoke, meaning that second hand smoke is just as bad (and therefor affecting those in your vicinity to some degree as well). As a result, it's expensive as bloody hell to society, leading to a *deficit* in high-quality medical care socialist countries. Oh, and the nicotine itself, separate from ingestion method, also causes sleeping problems, gastro-intestinal problems, and headaches. So enjoy that.
For the poor epidemiologists around, smoking is a major pain in the ass, because it's a confounder in almost every damn longitudinal cohort study ever, meaning more math, more matching, more controlling for additional factors, and more tables.
On the plus side: There are only two benefits that I know; the calming effect of nicotine can be helpful in reducing point stress (often negated by the *increase* in stress that comes from nicotine abstinence), and the *possibly* mild protection it offers from late-onset Alzheimer's disease. I say possibly because the evidence of this protection is no consistent.
I don't think they do. And judging by the two kinds of of people that complain about the under-representation of women in tech... The first person is doing absolutely nothing about it except throwing a patreon account around and begging for more money... The second uses it as a PR campaign (without realizing that the outragists that care about the whole thing have no interest in tech)...
Not a single complainer decided to go into tech to improve the ratio. But you hear about it. From "journalists". From bloggers, vloggers, and podders. And high ups that don't do any of that stuff themselves, but have a chief of public relations.
How come the programmers aren't complaining? If this is such a problem, why is it only ever raised from the outside in the form of clickbait, PR, or justification for getting more money?
Great idea. Let's take all the enthusiastic, optimistic, and insightful CS students and throw them out the window, then try to coax and cajole the uninterested into replacing them. I don't see how this plan could possibly fail.
Seriously, guys?
What happened to merit? What happened to "the heart wants what the heart wants"? What happened to free choice? Why must there be more girls in CS to the point of excluding those *actually* interested in the subject itself? And why is this situation not repeated in welding, or mining? Why don't you want women to make up their own minds on what they want to do?
I see lots of women every day that somehow managed to pick a career and/or interest without anyone having to invest lots of money into convincing or cajoling them, so I'm pretty sure it can be done.
If I'm not mistaken, you are thinking about branch prediction, not out-of-order-executions in an otherwise serial pipe.
To elaborate, OOE deals with computing as much as possible without having to wait for a result first. Branch prediction is a cache separate from the execution tray that attempts to predict the outcome of an if/switch or other branching evaluation and then load the pipelines to the execution tray with the computations following that branching, since the time it takes to evaluate an if/switch can be long, and without a prediction the cpu would have to stall until the evaluation is complete.
I'm curious why this type of "diversity" drive only pops up in tech-related office jobs? Where is the drive in getting more men into child care jobs or social services? Why not more women in construction work? Why not more women in the army? Why not more women in sanitation, mining, welding, or fishing?
As it stands, it doesn't seem like diversity is the goal at all.
What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT that gets people into a blind spitting rage? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game guys. Maybe its the gross unwelcoming attitude that puts people off.
Because a lot of people have worked damn hard to get somewhere and to build something. And all of that effort is being diminished to no small extent by this preferred treatment program.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota, wouldn't you get a little grumpy? That is why so many here are asking for the 'best candidate' treatment rather than the 'look how minority I am' treatment. That is why yet another of these "diversity" programs is viewed with no small amount of suspicion and apprehension.
Intel being Intel *might* be able to do something smart, but given the organizations that they have partnered with for the drive, it is very very unlikely that anything other than feminazi rabies will come out of it. And that sucks for everyone on the planet.
Does he want bog-standard, shallow, progressive "diversity" - everyone looks different on the outside but diversity of thought or opinion is not tolerated while every member is assigned rigid roles based on mere appearance, or real diversity where no one cares about how to categorize group members into various victim classes?
The former is the standard, and the money is going to organizations that deal only in the former.
How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?
Because then you'll be approached by a frothing at the mouth "journalist", asking questions like "Why isn't your workforce 50% white, 50% asian, 50% black, , 50% hispanic, 50% homosexual, and 50% female?".
Hiring the best suited candidate is so 1990. Now it's all about the progressive stack and checking your privilege.
Meh, the summary doesn't bring up any of the new stuff.
We *know* that exercise has an effect on the body. We *know* that exercising increases concentrations of growth hormones, anti-inflammatory responses, and metabolic rate adjusting factors. We *know* these adjustments are made through methylation patterns over enhancers/promoters.
Furthermore, there is no *change* in the DNA. Any alterations that occur do so on the back-chain of the DNA, which is normal behavior as the backchain is modified by ALOT of different factors. No nucleotides are being mutated or swapped by exercising (unless you imbibe strange and unhealthy body building substances).
Last, the adjustments made to the exercised cells are in *response* to the exercise rather than proactive as the summary suggests. It would after all be really freaky if your body started building up muscles *before* you started working out. That would actually freak me the hell out.
Excellent summary. What it boils down to is that some people were criticized, and they defended themselves by claiming these were attacks on their gender. The reason is plain and simple: They could not credibly defend themselves against the criticism itself, so they used misdirection and made it a gender-issue. Predictably, a lot of people with no clue whatsoever about what was going on then jumped on those criticizing, as apparently criticizing a person of female gender is an attack on them all...
I think this is the best summary ever of #GamerGate. There are several books worth of stuff happening as a result of this, but this is the point of origin.
Can someone please explain to me what this whole "Let's convince/force/cajole/firehose women into CS" thing is all about? *Why* is it so frikkin important all of a sudden? Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)?
Have I missed something important? Are women no longer considered smart enough to make their own choices regarding careers? Must we big smart men carefully explain to them why they *want* to go into CS?
What happens when this magical girls-only experience ends and suddenly the real world rears its ugly head with (God help us) *men* in the actual workplace? Perhaps we need to have some girls-only workplaces as well? But wait, what about when the workday ends? There might still be some *men* out and about. We need a girls-only city to make sure no disgusting boys hang around with their home-grown CS interests...
And now I'm all out of sarcasm. Thanks internet.
I guess my question boils down to: "Why force this interest? Why force this new brand of 'make-no-sense equality quotas' to *everyone's* detriment?"
I'm guessing you aren't a gamer. I can tell you that as a gamer, we have very, *very*, different views on how to rate a game. When I look at what games to buy, I consider the following: Fun Ported Quality of controls Interesting mechanics Immersion Replayability Difficulty Multiplayer Stability
And none of those were on your list. Why not leave the grading of games to those who actually enjoy the games? Or at least those who play them? I sure as hell don't wander into the competitive sailing scene and start demanding they rate their boats on how much they look like penises when squinting. Why do the same to games?
It would be disingenuous to suggest that sexism does not primarily impact women negatively.
In war? Men get killed in combat, women stay at home. In crime? Women get lower sentences, in some cases skipping prison time entirely. In trouble? Heard about support groups for women? I sure have. A man's support from society when in trouble can be summarized as "walk it off and man up". In court? Women win custody cases by default.
I'm not suggesting that being a woman is all peaches and cream, but get some perspective please. Life isn't black and white, and the gender debate isn't either.
Prison is theoretically at least not meant to be a "punishment" and if you say that to anyone who works in the "corrections" system they will get angry with you. Prison is not supposed to be about making people unhappy in return for them having done "bad things" it is supposed to be about reforming them and turning them back into good citizens.
Indeed, the purpose of prison is to correct behavioural traits that lead to criminal actions. That is after all why the success rate of prisons and even the legal system itself is measured in recidivism. One can however argue (and quite successfully so) that punishment is a tool for 'correcting' behaviour. Not the only tool, but it is available in every prison and does not require a degree or additional cost.
The first time I wanted to see what this 'fire' thing was about, I was duly punished with a burned hand. When I forgot my key and kicked in the cellar window, I got duly punished with parental sanctions. Both of these punishments corrected my behaviour.
Some people need a carrot to change. Some people need a whip.
There are already a hundred words that mean the same as 'metastable' and 'false' vacuum. Why invent two more? Why use the oxymoron at all? It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me hide in the physics department and randomly jump out and donkey-punch surprised physicists on thursdays.
Slashdot Mirror
>>"But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin."
A scientist should understand evolution sufficiently well to not use arguments like this.
Why are we carbon based and not silica based? Either works just fine. Evolution doesn't pick the "best" option, it picks a "functional" option. After something has proven to function, evolution stops caring (until it no longer functions). Why iron and not copper in our blood? Either works fine.
Why quantum critical "bio"molecules? Because they work. There is NO other criteria. They could be better than the alternative, they could be worse, they could be the same. But they work. That is all we can assert.
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?
It's a tricky system to get right.
I don't know, is att a big owner of content, like time warner an their ilk? Maybe they are trying to deferentiate from the competition. Seems like a good strategy to me.
It looks like fast lanes and slow lanes to me, just from a different perspective. Of course, if I'm wrong, and they build a better protocol for torrent traffic, I'm all for it. Improvements are great, and necessary.
If the new tactic is to simply prioritise torrent traffic, then it's a fast lane. What's the difference between prioritising 9 types of traffic and throttling the 10th? None at all. This could just as well be used to throttle unwanted traffic (let's say WB starts prioritising everything *except* torrent traffic).
Much like an overly broad law, it's great when it's used to improve the things we care about, but it could just as easily be used for the opposite. And should this new *great* idea be used as an argument to curtail the net neutrality rules (let's allow fast lanes but not slow lanes instead of banning both types), then you can expect the opposite usecase to come about shortly.
The one thing I'm certain of is that AT&T will happily screw you over for a dime, and any consumer-friendly initiative from them should be scoured under the looking glass several times over for the devils signature.
Not sure if troll or srs...
Smoking is pretty close to the worst thing you can do if you wish to lead a long and pleasant life (including the endgame).
Smoking has an unwanted effect on almost every cancer probability (including cervical/breast cancer for you women), every bronco-, cardio-, aortic-, pharyngeal- (all kinds), and endocrine- disease available (to name *but a few*). If this wasn't enough, the damage caused is from the smoke, meaning that second hand smoke is just as bad (and therefor affecting those in your vicinity to some degree as well). As a result, it's expensive as bloody hell to society, leading to a *deficit* in high-quality medical care socialist countries. Oh, and the nicotine itself, separate from ingestion method, also causes sleeping problems, gastro-intestinal problems, and headaches. So enjoy that.
For the poor epidemiologists around, smoking is a major pain in the ass, because it's a confounder in almost every damn longitudinal cohort study ever, meaning more math, more matching, more controlling for additional factors, and more tables.
On the plus side:
There are only two benefits that I know; the calming effect of nicotine can be helpful in reducing point stress (often negated by the *increase* in stress that comes from nicotine abstinence), and the *possibly* mild protection it offers from late-onset Alzheimer's disease. I say possibly because the evidence of this protection is no consistent.
Now it's just getting sili
I don't think they do. And judging by the two kinds of of people that complain about the under-representation of women in tech...
The first person is doing absolutely nothing about it except throwing a patreon account around and begging for more money...
The second uses it as a PR campaign (without realizing that the outragists that care about the whole thing have no interest in tech)...
Not a single complainer decided to go into tech to improve the ratio. But you hear about it. From "journalists". From bloggers, vloggers, and podders. And high ups that don't do any of that stuff themselves, but have a chief of public relations.
How come the programmers aren't complaining? If this is such a problem, why is it only ever raised from the outside in the form of clickbait, PR, or justification for getting more money?
Great idea. Let's take all the enthusiastic, optimistic, and insightful CS students and throw them out the window, then try to coax and cajole the uninterested into replacing them. I don't see how this plan could possibly fail.
Seriously, guys?
What happened to merit? What happened to "the heart wants what the heart wants"? What happened to free choice?
Why must there be more girls in CS to the point of excluding those *actually* interested in the subject itself? And why is this situation not repeated in welding, or mining? Why don't you want women to make up their own minds on what they want to do?
I see lots of women every day that somehow managed to pick a career and/or interest without anyone having to invest lots of money into convincing or cajoling them, so I'm pretty sure it can be done.
If I'm not mistaken, you are thinking about branch prediction, not out-of-order-executions in an otherwise serial pipe.
To elaborate, OOE deals with computing as much as possible without having to wait for a result first.
Branch prediction is a cache separate from the execution tray that attempts to predict the outcome of an if/switch or other branching evaluation and then load the pipelines to the execution tray with the computations following that branching, since the time it takes to evaluate an if/switch can be long, and without a prediction the cpu would have to stall until the evaluation is complete.
This is not rocket surgery.
DO:
Put your shoes on before going outside.
DO NOT:
Greet your neighbors with a tennis racket to the genitals.
DO:
Post the summary of the article in the summary.
DO NOT:
Post worthless clickbait in the summary.
Please grasp the concept.
Are you looking to replace Austin Powers?
I'm curious why this type of "diversity" drive only pops up in tech-related office jobs? Where is the drive in getting more men into child care jobs or social services? Why not more women in construction work? Why not more women in the army? Why not more women in sanitation, mining, welding, or fishing?
As it stands, it doesn't seem like diversity is the goal at all.
What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT that gets people into a blind spitting rage? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game guys.
Maybe its the gross unwelcoming attitude that puts people off.
Because a lot of people have worked damn hard to get somewhere and to build something. And all of that effort is being diminished to no small extent by this preferred treatment program.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota, wouldn't you get a little grumpy? That is why so many here are asking for the 'best candidate' treatment rather than the 'look how minority I am' treatment. That is why yet another of these "diversity" programs is viewed with no small amount of suspicion and apprehension.
Intel being Intel *might* be able to do something smart, but given the organizations that they have partnered with for the drive, it is very very unlikely that anything other than feminazi rabies will come out of it. And that sucks for everyone on the planet.
Does he want bog-standard, shallow, progressive "diversity" - everyone looks different on the outside but diversity of thought or opinion is not tolerated while every member is assigned rigid roles based on mere appearance, or real diversity where no one cares about how to categorize group members into various victim classes?
The former is the standard, and the money is going to organizations that deal only in the former.
How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?
Because then you'll be approached by a frothing at the mouth "journalist", asking questions like "Why isn't your workforce 50% white, 50% asian, 50% black, , 50% hispanic, 50% homosexual, and 50% female?".
Hiring the best suited candidate is so 1990. Now it's all about the progressive stack and checking your privilege.
Meh, the summary doesn't bring up any of the new stuff.
We *know* that exercise has an effect on the body. We *know* that exercising increases concentrations of growth hormones, anti-inflammatory responses, and metabolic rate adjusting factors. We *know* these adjustments are made through methylation patterns over enhancers/promoters.
Furthermore, there is no *change* in the DNA. Any alterations that occur do so on the back-chain of the DNA, which is normal behavior as the backchain is modified by ALOT of different factors. No nucleotides are being mutated or swapped by exercising (unless you imbibe strange and unhealthy body building substances).
Last, the adjustments made to the exercised cells are in *response* to the exercise rather than proactive as the summary suggests. It would after all be really freaky if your body started building up muscles *before* you started working out. That would actually freak me the hell out.
Excellent summary. What it boils down to is that some people were criticized, and they defended themselves by claiming these were attacks on their gender. The reason is plain and simple: They could not credibly defend themselves against the criticism itself, so they used misdirection and made it a gender-issue. Predictably, a lot of people with no clue whatsoever about what was going on then jumped on those criticizing, as apparently criticizing a person of female gender is an attack on them all...
I think this is the best summary ever of #GamerGate. There are several books worth of stuff happening as a result of this, but this is the point of origin.
Can someone please explain to me what this whole "Let's convince/force/cajole/firehose women into CS" thing is all about?
*Why* is it so frikkin important all of a sudden? Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)?
Have I missed something important? Are women no longer considered smart enough to make their own choices regarding careers? Must we big smart men carefully explain to them why they *want* to go into CS?
What happens when this magical girls-only experience ends and suddenly the real world rears its ugly head with (God help us) *men* in the actual workplace? Perhaps we need to have some girls-only workplaces as well? But wait, what about when the workday ends? There might still be some *men* out and about. We need a girls-only city to make sure no disgusting boys hang around with their home-grown CS interests...
And now I'm all out of sarcasm. Thanks internet.
I guess my question boils down to: "Why force this interest? Why force this new brand of 'make-no-sense equality quotas' to *everyone's* detriment?"
Naah, much better to settle. Then you'll get that juicy ten year contract in the Silicon Valley lobby upon quitting your prosecutor's position.
I'm guessing you aren't a gamer.
I can tell you that as a gamer, we have very, *very*, different views on how to rate a game.
When I look at what games to buy, I consider the following:
Fun
Ported
Quality of controls
Interesting mechanics
Immersion
Replayability
Difficulty
Multiplayer
Stability
And none of those were on your list.
Why not leave the grading of games to those who actually enjoy the games? Or at least those who play them? I sure as hell don't wander into the competitive sailing scene and start demanding they rate their boats on how much they look like penises when squinting. Why do the same to games?
Is it like a quality seal?
Yes, except in Norway cause that didn't work so well last time.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that sexism does not primarily impact women negatively.
In war? Men get killed in combat, women stay at home.
In crime? Women get lower sentences, in some cases skipping prison time entirely.
In trouble? Heard about support groups for women? I sure have. A man's support from society when in trouble can be summarized as "walk it off and man up".
In court? Women win custody cases by default.
I'm not suggesting that being a woman is all peaches and cream, but get some perspective please. Life isn't black and white, and the gender debate isn't either.
How about dropping the pretense and going with 'sexy' instead?
Let's see you sell them games as "free of any sexy", "does not contain sexy", or the R rated "may contain traces of sexy".
Prison is theoretically at least not meant to be a "punishment" and if you say that to anyone who works in the "corrections" system they will get angry with you. Prison is not supposed to be about making people unhappy in return for them having done "bad things" it is supposed to be about reforming them and turning them back into good citizens.
Indeed, the purpose of prison is to correct behavioural traits that lead to criminal actions. That is after all why the success rate of prisons and even the legal system itself is measured in recidivism. One can however argue (and quite successfully so) that punishment is a tool for 'correcting' behaviour. Not the only tool, but it is available in every prison and does not require a degree or additional cost.
The first time I wanted to see what this 'fire' thing was about, I was duly punished with a burned hand.
When I forgot my key and kicked in the cellar window, I got duly punished with parental sanctions.
Both of these punishments corrected my behaviour.
Some people need a carrot to change. Some people need a whip.
There are already a hundred words that mean the same as 'metastable' and 'false' vacuum. Why invent two more? Why use the oxymoron at all?
It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me hide in the physics department and randomly jump out and donkey-punch surprised physicists on thursdays.
Don't hack the frack?
No hacking on our fracking?
The frack are you hacking?
We heard you like hacking, so we put some frack in your hack.
The possibilities are endless.