I misspoke when I said Buddhists have a humanistic "world-view." I meant to say that Buddhists have a regard for others that is humanistic in the informal sense of having compassion and respect for others. And I suppose that means I'm mischaracterizing humanism, which is much more than that.
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
...
When that "collective effort" means a response to mere "OK, prove it" skepticism is to label the skeptic a heretic, errr, denier, YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT THAT COLLECTIVE EFFORT WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING.
If saying "Show me the data" results in name-calling, the name callers do NOT have "science" on their side.
Except that's not what the collective effort of scientists has entailed.
Scientists have presented their evidence time and time again. The Denialists are like the Birthers: they keep asking for evidence even after it has been provided.
Eventually, scientists get fed up with trying to convince people who refuse to be convinced, no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.
And I feel pretty safe in saying that those who scream "show me the data" would not be able to understand the data anyway.
The core message of Buddhism is: 'every man for himself'.
I'm not a Buddhist, yet I am offended by this mischaracterization.
Buddhism's core message is that suffering is an inherent part of being human, and one deals with suffering through a discipline of mental and moral self-purification. And when it comes to one's relationship with others, Buddhists adhere to the principle of Karma.
Buddhists generally have a humanistic world-view. Their spiritual journey is an inner and reflective one, but that doesn't mean it's "every man for himself."
TL/DR: Common Law specifies three rules that determine whether someone is an employee:
(1) Behavioral (Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?) (2) Financial (Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)) (3) Type of Relationship (Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?)
It seems clear that Uber drivers are employees under rule 1. It's less clear whether they are under rule 2, but on balance it seems that the drivers are employees under this rule as well. And as for rule 3, obviously Uber does everything it can to keep the type of relationship from looking like that of employer-employee, but maybe some aspects of it still qualify here as well.
Gaah, whoops, the Iran hostage crisis was not the Iran-Contra affair. The former ended before Reagan took office. And conspiracy theories about a backroom deal orchestrated by Reagan are just that.
But my point stands that no treason was committed in either case.
You forget that Facebook has more -- far more -- users posting pictures than it has staff to review them. Allowing users to override an image filter invites the users to abuse the override whenever they get flagged. They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.
The current system allows flagged photos to be reviewed. The content can be restored if the flag is a false positive. And a user can be sanctioned if they trigger too many true positives.
Facebook has a legitimate concern about users potentially distributing pornographic material with their service. They would rather block-and-review than let someone override and allow such distribution, even temporarily. The hassle of having false positives reviewed is a trivial inconvenience for users who receive Facebook's service for free.
If one side disproportionately supports fake news, then Facebook's algorithms will disproportionately identify one side as the source of all of it. And I won't be a bit surprised when that one side complains about it. Cry me a river.
Whoops, I see now that Burlington Electric says it was federal officials (not their own) who misled the Washington Post. But my point stands that the Washington Post was simply correcting an error, not making things up.
Pardon me, looking at the quote again, I see that Burlington Electric says it was federal officials (not their own) that misled the Washington Post. But my point stands.
I guess you missed the part where Burlington Electric admitted to providing the inaccurate information that led the Washington Post to report the wrong story. It's in the first link in TFS. Here, let me help you.
There is no indication that either our electric grid or customer information has been compromised. Media reports stating that Burlington Electric was hacked or that the electric grid was breached are false. [...] Federal officials have indicated that this specific type of Internet traffic also has been observed elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric. It’s unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country.
From the Burlington Electric website linked in TFS:
Federal officials have indicated that this specific type of Internet traffic also has been observed elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric. It’s unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country.
So, Burlington Electric itself is admitting mea culpa on this one.
Here we go again. This reminds me of a boy, a boy who loved to cry wolf.
Considering the update, which negates the story, does this count as that "fake news" we've been hearing about?
No, it doesn't.
Fake news is a story that is presented as factual news (not satire) whose author knows it to be untrue, and who publishes it with the intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news item whose author pursues the truth in good faith, but gets it wrong and then later posts a correction. That is what WP did here.
Not only that, but if you watch his livestream of the event where the cops are still on the scene, he goes on a tirade about how Hillary voters would never have reported it to the police, but Trump supporters -- they don't mess around.
Instead of being a hero, he's shown himself to be just another deplorable.
Yup. I just watched the video. It happens about 1/3 of the way through.
Too bad. I thought he was a class act up to that point. Good for him for calling the cops, but it's uncool to use the situation as a platform to express political views.
Taxi drivers also do the reverse all the time. I don't know about USA, granted, but here in my country, the best place to ask for prostitutes is a taxi driver.
Do you speak from experience?;-P
Anyway, let's not forget that prostitution is a crime between adults, whereas prostituting a minor is on a whole different level. I wouldn't necessarily applaud a taxi driver who thinks that one is okay and the other isn't, but there is a difference.
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Science is most assuredly not a democracy. Leaders may be determined by geography, tradition, and popularity, but truth is not determined in such a way.
This. Science is a meritocracy. To complete your point, truth in science is determined by observation.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair points. Thanks for the improvements.
I misspoke when I said Buddhists have a humanistic "world-view." I meant to say that Buddhists have a regard for others that is humanistic in the informal sense of having compassion and respect for others. And I suppose that means I'm mischaracterizing humanism, which is much more than that.
Still in denial. Work on it.
Trump is fair game for the next four years. Work on that.
I am sure this was done to intentionally create an expectation for Trump to do the same.
Smart move.
If that's the reason, that's awfully petulant.
Petulant? Between Obama and Trump, you tell me who fits that description.
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
When that "collective effort" means a response to mere "OK, prove it" skepticism is to label the skeptic a heretic, errr, denier, YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT THAT COLLECTIVE EFFORT WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING.
If saying "Show me the data" results in name-calling, the name callers do NOT have "science" on their side.
Except that's not what the collective effort of scientists has entailed.
Scientists have presented their evidence time and time again. The Denialists are like the Birthers: they keep asking for evidence even after it has been provided.
Eventually, scientists get fed up with trying to convince people who refuse to be convinced, no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.
And I feel pretty safe in saying that those who scream "show me the data" would not be able to understand the data anyway.
The core message of Buddhism is: 'every man for himself'.
I'm not a Buddhist, yet I am offended by this mischaracterization.
Buddhism's core message is that suffering is an inherent part of being human, and one deals with suffering through a discipline of mental and moral self-purification. And when it comes to one's relationship with others, Buddhists adhere to the principle of Karma.
Buddhists generally have a humanistic world-view. Their spiritual journey is an inner and reflective one, but that doesn't mean it's "every man for himself."
Pretty good. Let me add this.
I googled "contractor vs. employee" and came up with an interesting link on the USA IRS website.
TL/DR: Common Law specifies three rules that determine whether someone is an employee:
(1) Behavioral (Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?)
(2) Financial (Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.))
(3) Type of Relationship (Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?)
It seems clear that Uber drivers are employees under rule 1. It's less clear whether they are under rule 2, but on balance it seems that the drivers are employees under this rule as well. And as for rule 3, obviously Uber does everything it can to keep the type of relationship from looking like that of employer-employee, but maybe some aspects of it still qualify here as well.
I'm no fan of Reagan, but I respect him and Gorbachev for sitting down together and ending the Cold War. And that is not fake news.
Gaah, whoops, the Iran hostage crisis was not the Iran-Contra affair. The former ended before Reagan took office. And conspiracy theories about a backroom deal orchestrated by Reagan are just that.
But my point stands that no treason was committed in either case.
It was as if the hostage takers are all frightened of what Reagan would do
To the contrary, they knew exactly what Reagan would do. They made a back room deal with Iran during the election - an act of Treason by the gipper.
Reagan should have died of his dementia in federal prison.
The Iran-Contra Affair may have been a violation of US law, but it was not treason because the US was not at war with Iran at the time.
In any case, Reagan played dumb about the whole thing.
Why do you hate America?
Do you still beat your wife?
Behold the power of a question with an unsubstantiated premise.
That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.
They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.
Read again: Repeat troublemakers would lose the override.
That's not good enough. Read my post again for the reasons.
You forget that Facebook has more -- far more -- users posting pictures than it has staff to review them. Allowing users to override an image filter invites the users to abuse the override whenever they get flagged. They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.
The current system allows flagged photos to be reviewed. The content can be restored if the flag is a false positive. And a user can be sanctioned if they trigger too many true positives.
Facebook has a legitimate concern about users potentially distributing pornographic material with their service. They would rather block-and-review than let someone override and allow such distribution, even temporarily. The hassle of having false positives reviewed is a trivial inconvenience for users who receive Facebook's service for free.
If one side disproportionately supports fake news, then Facebook's algorithms will disproportionately identify one side as the source of all of it. And I won't be a bit surprised when that one side complains about it. Cry me a river.
Responsible journalists verify before publishing.
Yes, they do. And despite that, they sometimes make mistakes. If they endeavour to correct them after the fact, they deserve a pass.
But those "journalists" who knowingly publish fake news with no intent to correct falsehoods do not deserve the same respect.
Whoops, I see now that Burlington Electric says it was federal officials (not their own) who misled the Washington Post. But my point stands that the Washington Post was simply correcting an error, not making things up.
Pardon me, looking at the quote again, I see that Burlington Electric says it was federal officials (not their own) that misled the Washington Post. But my point stands.
I guess you missed the part where Burlington Electric admitted to providing the inaccurate information that led the Washington Post to report the wrong story. It's in the first link in TFS. Here, let me help you.
There is no indication that either our electric grid or customer information has been compromised. Media reports stating that Burlington Electric was hacked or that the electric grid was breached are false.
[...]
Federal officials have indicated that this specific type of Internet traffic also has been observed elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric. It’s unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country.
The best mindfuck would be remaking Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith with Jar Jar Binks as a Sith Lord
Oh no, you had to say that? Now I'm doomed to keep hearing ...
Meesa no kill your father, Luke. Meesa is your father.
From the Burlington Electric website linked in TFS:
Federal officials have indicated that this specific type of Internet traffic also has been observed elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric. It’s unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country.
So, Burlington Electric itself is admitting mea culpa on this one.
Here we go again. This reminds me of a boy, a boy who loved to cry wolf.
The "boy who cried wolf" knew he was lying.
The Washington Post made a mistake, and corrected it.
Learn to recognize the difference.
Here we go again. This reminds me of a boy, a boy who loved to cry wolf.
Considering the update, which negates the story, does this count as that "fake news" we've been hearing about?
No, it doesn't.
Fake news is a story that is presented as factual news (not satire) whose author knows it to be untrue, and who publishes it with the intent to deceive.
It is not the same as a news item whose author pursues the truth in good faith, but gets it wrong and then later posts a correction. That is what WP did here.
Not only that, but if you watch his livestream of the event where the cops are still on the scene, he goes on a tirade about how Hillary voters would never have reported it to the police, but Trump supporters -- they don't mess around.
Instead of being a hero, he's shown himself to be just another deplorable.
Yup. I just watched the video. It happens about 1/3 of the way through.
Too bad. I thought he was a class act up to that point. Good for him for calling the cops, but it's uncool to use the situation as a platform to express political views.
Taxi drivers also do the reverse all the time.
I don't know about USA, granted, but here in my country, the best place to ask for prostitutes is a taxi driver.
Do you speak from experience? ;-P
Anyway, let's not forget that prostitution is a crime between adults, whereas prostituting a minor is on a whole different level. I wouldn't necessarily applaud a taxi driver who thinks that one is okay and the other isn't, but there is a difference.
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
> Science is a democracy
Science is most assuredly not a democracy. Leaders may be determined by geography, tradition, and popularity, but truth is not determined in such a way.
This. Science is a meritocracy. To complete your point, truth in science is determined by observation.