Wake up! A 5 second Google (fake news even) search will tell you the opposite is true. Despite that, our glorious Wikipedia will say that despite being banned, poor gun control is part of the increase in violent crimes since the 2012 ban, as if that makes any sense.
Is this the wikipedia article? Because on balance, it indicates that the increase in violent crime is due primarily to robbery, mostly motivated by severe food shortages.
It is true that their gun-control initiative has not been successful: only a small fraction of all guns in the country have been destroyed, most from involuntary seizures. Venezuela is still swimming in guns, and the people are desperately hungry. Claiming the murder rate went up because of a gun ban is a specious argument.
Nearly every country in the world incorporates some socialism into their society
"Nearly?" I would say they all do.
But your implication is that simply embracing some aspects of socialism does not make a country socialist. And I agree. My previous post went too far on that point.
Hyper-sensitive extremist tyrants embrace censorship of anything that puts them in a bad light, no matter what side they are on the political spectrum.
Found some more stuff on Cleve Baxter here. He was a CIA interrogation specialist and polygraph instructor. His claims of primary perception in plant life were widely dismissed in the scientific community. Rightly so IMHO.
Interesting if true indeed. It certainly seems a whole lot more plausible that the conclusions of this study. [PDF alert]
TL/DR: First, consider the author: Cleve Baxter of Baxter Research Foundation, Inc. Maybe he has an academic pedigree, but it's not obvious from his affiliation. Second, consider the publication: International Journal of Parapsychology.
The "money shot" in the paper is that the author claims to have observed a sudden change in the resistance of a plant's leaf as a result of him merely thinking about harming it. I have to take that conclusion with more than enough salt to cover the plant and him.
Paraphrasing something james Randi said once: it's important to keep an open mind -- open, but not gaping.
[I heard about this paper a long time ago. It seemed worth sharing in this discussion.]
If the resolution of movies is so high that they are essentially applying a blur filter everywher, then maybe we should back off the higher resolutions. What's the point of high res capture if you're just going to muddy the image in post processing?
I suppose one point is that there are other things in a scene besides the actors' faces. Higher resolution increases the immersive impact of the entire image.
And let's not dismiss the possibility that the art will adapt to the medium as it often has in the past (not the other way around). Maybe higher-res images of actors faces, blemishes and all, will become less of an issue if filmmakers, actors, makeup artists use high-res to give us better visual storytelling.
Of course this also means that you'd be liable for everything the bot does.
Not true. Many laws require violations to have "intent". Libel is one of these (at least in America). If your bot says something false and defamatory due to a programming oversight, the programmer is NOT guilty of libel because there was no intent.
Well, the programmer may not be liable for libel, but I can imagine s/he could be sued for something else if the bot causes or induces harm to people, property, or even reputations. Maybe there was no intent, but that doesn't mean there was no negligence or malpractice.
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm Fontina better way of these jokes after Morbier. That way I Cantal if someone's efforts can pass Munster. But keep Paneer out for comedian Monterey Jack -- he's Colby a mile, and Stilton night he's performing at the Blue Castello. His girlfriend took off her Bra in front of her Beaufort the crowd and got arrested, Butterkase probably will be dismissed because someone pointed a Burrata at her and made her do it. And don't Cheddar Gorgonzola food at the cheese bar -- you'll have to pass a Brick a day later.
My guess is that it's a typo. Maybe they mean a 95% confidence level (i.e., two sigmas) for the grey band surrounding the Berkely data. It's hard to say just from the figure. You need the full context.
In any case, all of those data sources appear to agree with each other quite well.
It isn't new information. The newest citations are in 2016
Nope. There are 15 citations. Three are from 2018. Two are from 2017. Did you think nobody would check?
and they're citing studies that were done entirely with models... that is not data.The data being cited is often about ten or more years older.
Wrong again. I did a quick skim of the Google Search links provided in the bibliography. My rough guess is that about half of them discuss data, and the other half discuss models that include comparisons to data. A couple of titles had the word 'prediction'.
Models are not data, but they are built and tested with data.
article title says "Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds "
Yes, the NYT article. But the article in Science has the title "How fast are the oceans warming?"
The research is not "new"... it is old stuff in a new box.
False. See above.
How many people that actually cite this stuff actually read any of it? I feel they're headline readers. Do better.
I love this argument. Urrr mah gurd the cows are the cause, go vegan. Hah fucking retards. Human beings output orders of magnitude more emssisons than any other animal. The cow argument is made by almost exclusively by morons who believe anything anyone tells them.
Yes, humans (and human activity) do emit more greenhouse gasses than any other animal. But not orders-of-magnitude more. Agriculture, and in particular, livestock, is still a significant contribution. The US Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported that agricultural contribution to be about 18% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, with cattle-breeding as a major component.
Worse, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, by a factor of about 23. On the flipside, it does break down more quickly in the atmosphere than CO2.
I'm guessing you never wrote a patent before. I have. So have several family members. It's work. Believe me, once it's granted, you feel like you earned it.
[Trump] was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance.
Wow. I mean, wow. [...reading it again...] Wow. [...shaking my head...]
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that is in bed with the media.
Okay... I doubt anyone can get you to change your mind about Hillary Clinton being a crook. Fine. But consider this: given a choice between voting for the knave and voting for the fool, you should vote for the knave. Why? Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk. Hell, watch anyone in power like a hawk.
As you say, smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. How tribal is it to have a policy of "anything against Trump". I mean, the whole Syria pull out is a prime example. Dems are now sounding like the warhawks.
I guess you have been reading selective accounts of current events. Even the Rs don't like the way DJT is pulling out of Syria. And several erstwhile cabinet-members who are generals didn't like it either.
This page is a prime example of something in need of a dark mode.
You're not wrong.
But consider that content-providers might want to have some control over the look of their content on peoples' devices. No doubt they can't stop dark-mode from happening anyway, and I'm certainly not going to shed a tear over that. Arguably it's a consumer-friendly option that should be embraced.
We already have injected, targeted content (ads) in various media, including browsers, live sporting events, and cable broadcasts, that content-providers may not be able to control or consent to. But messing around with the way the page looks and feels -- first with color-maps, and potentially with other things such as fonts, frame-placement, link actions, and so on -- might be going too far.
Imagine a browser that converts certain sites into 1990s-style retinal-torture pastels, with flashing backgrounds and headlines on fire. An extreme and unlikely example, but it illustrates how a device can alter someone's experience of a site in a way the content-provider might object to.
Fair enough. Using gravity to define the solar system would include the Oort Cloud, which is further out than the heliopause.
Perhaps the "end" of the solar system depends on your field. My background is in space science (plasmas and EM fields) so I suppose my bias is showing.
This. The boundary of the solar system is open to definition, but the generally accepted one is the heliopause -- the boundary at which the sun's effect on space mingles with and is weaker than that of interstellar space.
Slashdot Mirror
Wake up! A 5 second Google (fake news even) search will tell you the opposite is true. Despite that, our glorious Wikipedia will say that despite being banned, poor gun control is part of the increase in violent crimes since the 2012 ban, as if that makes any sense.
Is this the wikipedia article? Because on balance, it indicates that the increase in violent crime is due primarily to robbery, mostly motivated by severe food shortages.
It is true that their gun-control initiative has not been successful: only a small fraction of all guns in the country have been destroyed, most from involuntary seizures. Venezuela is still swimming in guns, and the people are desperately hungry. Claiming the murder rate went up because of a gun ban is a specious argument.
Nearly every country in the world incorporates some socialism into their society
"Nearly?" I would say they all do.
But your implication is that simply embracing some aspects of socialism does not make a country socialist. And I agree. My previous post went too far on that point.
Thanks for the improvement.
Spending money on things I don't care about, or curtailing capitalism in any way = socialism
Well then by your definition, every country in the world is socialist.
[A Communist constitution] always goes full censorship.
And fascists don't?
Hyper-sensitive extremist tyrants embrace censorship of anything that puts them in a bad light, no matter what side they are on the political spectrum.
Found some more stuff on Cleve Baxter here. He was a CIA interrogation specialist and polygraph instructor. His claims of primary perception in plant life were widely dismissed in the scientific community. Rightly so IMHO.
Interesting if true indeed. It certainly seems a whole lot more plausible that the conclusions of this study. [PDF alert]
TL/DR: First, consider the author: Cleve Baxter of Baxter Research Foundation, Inc. Maybe he has an academic pedigree, but it's not obvious from his affiliation. Second, consider the publication: International Journal of Parapsychology.
The "money shot" in the paper is that the author claims to have observed a sudden change in the resistance of a plant's leaf as a result of him merely thinking about harming it. I have to take that conclusion with more than enough salt to cover the plant and him.
Paraphrasing something james Randi said once: it's important to keep an open mind -- open, but not gaping.
[I heard about this paper a long time ago. It seemed worth sharing in this discussion.]
If the resolution of movies is so high that they are essentially applying a blur filter everywher, then maybe we should back off the higher resolutions. What's the point of high res capture if you're just going to muddy the image in post processing?
I suppose one point is that there are other things in a scene besides the actors' faces. Higher resolution increases the immersive impact of the entire image.
And let's not dismiss the possibility that the art will adapt to the medium as it often has in the past (not the other way around). Maybe higher-res images of actors faces, blemishes and all, will become less of an issue if filmmakers, actors, makeup artists use high-res to give us better visual storytelling.
Of course this also means that you'd be liable for everything the bot does.
Not true. Many laws require violations to have "intent". Libel is one of these (at least in America). If your bot says something false and defamatory due to a programming oversight, the programmer is NOT guilty of libel because there was no intent.
Well, the programmer may not be liable for libel, but I can imagine s/he could be sued for something else if the bot causes or induces harm to people, property, or even reputations. Maybe there was no intent, but that doesn't mean there was no negligence or malpractice.
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm Fontina better way of these jokes after Morbier. That way I Cantal if someone's efforts can pass Munster. But keep Paneer out for comedian Monterey Jack -- he's Colby a mile, and Stilton night he's performing at the Blue Castello. His girlfriend took off her Bra in front of her Beaufort the crowd and got arrested, Butterkase probably will be dismissed because someone pointed a Burrata at her and made her do it. And don't Cheddar Gorgonzola food at the cheese bar -- you'll have to pass a Brick a day later.
Their graphs only indicate a 95% uncertainty.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...
This definitely needs more study.
My guess is that it's a typo. Maybe they mean a 95% confidence level (i.e., two sigmas) for the grey band surrounding the Berkely data. It's hard to say just from the figure. You need the full context.
In any case, all of those data sources appear to agree with each other quite well.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
It isn't new information. The newest citations are in 2016
Nope. There are 15 citations. Three are from 2018. Two are from 2017. Did you think nobody would check?
and they're citing studies that were done entirely with models... that is not data.The data being cited is often about ten or more years older.
Wrong again. I did a quick skim of the Google Search links provided in the bibliography. My rough guess is that about half of them discuss data, and the other half discuss models that include comparisons to data. A couple of titles had the word 'prediction'.
Models are not data, but they are built and tested with data.
article title says "Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds "
Yes, the NYT article. But the article in Science has the title "How fast are the oceans warming?"
The research is not "new"... it is old stuff in a new box.
False. See above.
How many people that actually cite this stuff actually read any of it? I feel they're headline readers. Do better.
Oh the irony. I'll just let that stand.
Great post. Moderators, please note.
is for baby cows.
Moooo!
I love cheese! Just not a million pounds of it. No Whey...
I Gouda hand it to you. Feta love of God, that's so funny, I Camembert it. Emmental for cheese jokes -- I just Edam up.
English hard to learn? You must be joking, right?
No, I don't think he is.
Although, considering Poe's law, I suppose you might be. So maybe my whoosh.
The US Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Whoops, typo. Make that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
I love this argument. Urrr mah gurd the cows are the cause, go vegan. Hah fucking retards. Human beings output orders of magnitude more emssisons than any other animal. The cow argument is made by almost exclusively by morons who believe anything anyone tells them.
Yes, humans (and human activity) do emit more greenhouse gasses than any other animal. But not orders-of-magnitude more. Agriculture, and in particular, livestock, is still a significant contribution. The US Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported that agricultural contribution to be about 18% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, with cattle-breeding as a major component.
Worse, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, by a factor of about 23. On the flipside, it does break down more quickly in the atmosphere than CO2.
does not excuse his behavior.
Yes, it does. This is how you expose fraud in the system. You have a better way?
fraud != bias.
One set of participants in this story definitely committed fraud. The other may or may not be guilty of bias.
It's specious to claim fraud is widespread just because a small group managed to get away with it.
I'm guessing you never wrote a patent before. I have. So have several family members. It's work. Believe me, once it's granted, you feel like you earned it.
[Trump] was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance.
Wow. I mean, wow. [...reading it again...] Wow. [...shaking my head...]
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that is in bed with the media.
Okay ... I doubt anyone can get you to change your mind about Hillary Clinton being a crook. Fine. But consider this: given a choice between voting for the knave and voting for the fool, you should vote for the knave. Why? Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk. Hell, watch anyone in power like a hawk.
As you say, smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. How tribal is it to have a policy of "anything against Trump". I mean, the whole Syria pull out is a prime example. Dems are now sounding like the warhawks.
I guess you have been reading selective accounts of current events. Even the Rs don't like the way DJT is pulling out of Syria. And several erstwhile cabinet-members who are generals didn't like it either.
Chrome for Mac should get it no less than a year before Chrome for Windows. Apple invented dark mode. Honor them.
Apple 'invented' dark mode? The original CRT with a CL prompt was dark-mode by design, and it predates Apple's very existence by many years.
This page is a prime example of something in need of a dark mode.
You're not wrong.
But consider that content-providers might want to have some control over the look of their content on peoples' devices. No doubt they can't stop dark-mode from happening anyway, and I'm certainly not going to shed a tear over that. Arguably it's a consumer-friendly option that should be embraced.
We already have injected, targeted content (ads) in various media, including browsers, live sporting events, and cable broadcasts, that content-providers may not be able to control or consent to. But messing around with the way the page looks and feels -- first with color-maps, and potentially with other things such as fonts, frame-placement, link actions, and so on -- might be going too far.
Imagine a browser that converts certain sites into 1990s-style retinal-torture pastels, with flashing backgrounds and headlines on fire. An extreme and unlikely example, but it illustrates how a device can alter someone's experience of a site in a way the content-provider might object to.
Fair enough. Using gravity to define the solar system would include the Oort Cloud, which is further out than the heliopause.
Perhaps the "end" of the solar system depends on your field. My background is in space science (plasmas and EM fields) so I suppose my bias is showing.
Thanks for the improvement.
This. The boundary of the solar system is open to definition, but the generally accepted one is the heliopause -- the boundary at which the sun's effect on space mingles with and is weaker than that of interstellar space.
New Horizons will speed past Ultima Thule at about 14.1 km/s and pass within about 3,540 km of the surface.
FTFY. Note in particular that it's km/s not m/s. You drive your car around your neighbourhood at about 14 m/s.