He had explosives residue all over him according to multiple tests
- The End
You can all put your race cards away now
Honestly, I think that justifies his questioning. It doesn't justify searching his home without informing him about it, if that part of the story really happened. A warrant needs to be issued and presented to him.
Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.
This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.
As I've pointed out before, if you think McCarthyism is wrong because he was accusing people who weren't communists of being communists, you don't get it. The problem with McCarthyism is that he was trying to hurt people for their political views. In this country, you have the right to be communist.
You're not objectively wrong, but that's not the problem. You're assuming the term cisgendered is a PC term, which from my understanding of what I read in Julia Serano's Whipping Girl is not where it comes from or what its intended use is.
Actually, I was just objecting directly to the sentence, "The whole point of not using the word 'normal' is to avoid saying that people who are not cisgendered are not normal." I don't have a problem with the word.
I've got absolutely nothing against gay or transgendered individuals. I think discrimination, and especially attempts to dehumanize others for who they are, as you've described, is despicable. That said, I do tend to be very much anti-PC. I think the proper response to someone trying to dehumanize transgendered individuals by saying they're not normal is to say, "no, we're not. What's your point? I assure you there are many ways in which you are not normal." Instead of being offended by words, or trying to change the usage of such words, I think any group being dehumanized wins these battles when we teach ourselves to not fall apart when words are used against us. Doing so robs them of their power.
I'm not saying that's easy to do, either. However, it's a better goal to aim for than trying to get everyone else to walk on eggshells.
Cisgendered means your brain gender matches your physical gender. The whole point of not using the word 'normal' is to avoid saying that people who are not cisgendered are not normal.
Which is stupid PC crap. Being transgendered isn't normal. Which is not to say that's a bad thing, they're just being offended for no reason. Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution. Most people are not transgendered, therefore being transgendered is not not normal.
By itself, not being normal isn't offensive. Most people can't run as fast as Usain Bolt, therefore Usain Bolt isn't normal. That's not an insult.
The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?
Generally speaking, we do agree as a society that convicted criminals lose some rights (although not all). I mean, normally I would say that it's not alright to hold someone against their will, but do you have an ethical objection to jails in general? Where exactly to draw the line is a complex ethical question that would be difficult to solve in this forum. I am personally not against taking the DNA from people when a warrant is issued in a case where DNA would be relevant evidence. That said, I've never researched the subject enough, and am willing to entertain the possibility I could be convinced otherwise.
The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.
That's not the analogy I meant to imply. I mean to say you may object to the use of GPS technology in order to have unmanned drones bomb locations without any human supervision. But you don't object to the researching of global positioning technologies in general simply because they would make that scenario possible. Similarly, I would object to the use of DNA by employers who want to avoid the risk of hiring someone prone to depression, which this research makes possible. But I don't object to the research. Knowledge is separate from ethics, and we should never be afraid to learn anything.
The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes.
Everything has been used for malicious purposes. We're typing on a computer right now. You may have used GPS to get someplace. Well, targetting computers in conjunction with GPS are used to kill people. I carry a pocket knife with me because it's often useful. People get stabbed with pocket knives. We use airplanes to quickly travel around the world. The military uses airplanes to drop bombs.
I'm not saying that means we should take things lightly. On the contrary, it means we need to be constantly vigilant of every action we take and examine the ethics behind them. It's far too easy to accidentally take a step too far as a result of tunnel vision when you have a particular goal. But you can't replace vigilance with ignorance. Scientists figuring out which specific genes are related to increased suicidal behavior? That's just knowledge. It's ethically neutral. When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, I'll be right there protesting with you. That's what leads to a Gattaca society.
Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is?
No, but I see how absolutely flawed yours is. It's called the straw man fallacy. Here's what you said:
To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
Emphasis mine in the quote above. Your argument is, of course, absolutely correct. Unfortunately it's not what I've claimed and it's not what this study claims. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. This is what I've said:
It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component.
A component, as in one factor out of many. In addition, I also said:
you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression
I didn't say you could test to see if someone has depression, I said you could test to see if they have an increased risk of getting depression. So now that we've cleared that up, I can address your other comments.
If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.
First of all, I'm pretty sure I would still not commit suicide. I would quit doing idiotic things and get my life back on track. And it would be fairly easy to do so under your scenario. That's not to say there's nothing that would make me consider suicide. If I found out today I had early-onset Alzheimer's, I would consider suicide before it gets to the point where I'm no longer capable of taking care of myself. If I found out I had terminal cancer and a sufficiently low probability of recovery through chemo, I might consider not suffering through chemo, and instead spending the rest of my relatively healthy life with family and friends, and committing suicide when the cancer effects get sufficiently bad. That's not to say I have a genetic predisposition to suicide, I probably don't.
That said, you know those stories of kids who get bullied on facebook and decide to commit suicide? Or those people who commit suicide after their boyfriend or girlfriend breaks up with them? The vast majority of people would never commit suicide under those circumstances. But if you have a genetic predisposition, it might be enough to send you over the edge. Detecting this and being aware you're at an increased risk could lead you to take steps to prevent it by forming a support network, going on medication, avoiding medication known to increase suicide rates, etc.
As a real example, I've paid for a genetic profile on myself and know that I am at increased risk for Type II diabetes. That doesn't mean I *have* Type II diabetes. It means I'm more careful about what I eat now, and watch my weight carefully. I also know I'm at increased risk for certain types of cancer, so I started getting screened for those at an earlier age to increase my chances of catching it early if I develop it. Which I might not.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling...
I didn't misread it, but I did misinterpret your comment. There were multiple ACs, and I thought you were referring to another one. The person you were replying to wasn't an AC, but he was replying to this AC comment which claimed nothing should be rigid ever. I thought you were supporting him, which made the rollbars comment strange.
So I apologize, but in my defense you didn't make it that clear who you were talking about. I was just following the thread.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver. That's not really backing up the AC.
You want to dissipate the energy with crumpling, but you don't want to crumple into the driver or passengers. That means that at some point it needs to get really rigid. Deform by a certain amount, but never deform beyond a particular point. Considering the NHTSA gave the vehicle 5 stars, I'm pretty sure their machine broke before crushing past the point it's not supposed to.
The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression.
It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.
The list of eugenics propaganda is getting longer, and I'll have to study this to determine if it needs to go there
Recognizing that our genes have an effect on us isn't "eugenics." It's common-sense. DNA controls the color of my eyes, my skin, the type of hair I have, my height, my body type, the relative chances I have of getting heart disease or certain types of cancer...why you would think it has no effect whatsoever on my mental health is beyond me. Studies only cross into eugenics if they start advocating people with certain genes shouldn't breed, or shouldn't breed with people with a different set of genes, or should be eliminated completely from the gene pool. Saying we have genetic differences, some of which provide advantages and other which provide disadvantages is just fact. Figuring out which genes are responsible for those advantages and disadvantages is science.
As soon as I read the headline, I was reminded of an earlier slashdot article from last year.
In the linked NIH study, drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day was associated with a lower risk of death. From all causes. This study is probably a follow up to the earlier study, and they came to the opposite conclusion.
Conclusion: not enough studies to change your daily habits one way or another. Obligatory xkcd
But who should be getting the abuse you advocate? The executives of the big publishers or the regular folks working for the industry to actually make games? I've disliked games before but that doesn't mean that I should be justified to spew vitriol at the coders, artists and others working in the industry.
Maybe, but I think there's something wrong with society when people aren't capable of taking criticism, however unjustified. If anyone is threatening to do these guys or their families physical harm, then that absolutely crosses the line, and they need to call the police. If they're talking about random people online talking about how much they hate a game and the developers who made it...grow the fuck up and develop a thicker skin. Either be proud of the work and ignore what people say, or listen to them if the criticism is valid and see what you can do to do better. If you can't stand it, then by all means do leave the industry.
When we release our work to the public, whatever that work happens to be, we open ourselves up for criticism. Sometimes that can be really hurtful as a combination of people being assholes and the time you've invested in doing the work. However, it comes with the territory, and if you can't take it, then maybe you shouldn't be in an industry where you release your work to the public. Maybe you should keep all your art under your bed and never show it to anyone.
Successful man, bright man, ruthless man, and entirely correct.
Bill Gates grew up. Page and Brin may still have some growing up to do, but Bezos has no excuse. And Musk's work has always been overrated, though it's almost geek suicide to suggest so.
Bullshit. He's doing PR against google for business reasons and because he can think he can sell people on what he's saying. The Gates Foundation does a lot of good for people in poor countries, but it also does a lot of good for Bill Gates. It really isn't entirely selfless. It's also used for tax avoidance and for promoting pharmaceutical patents around the world in countries that typically don't respect them. "Here, we'll donate these vaccines if you agree to recognize these patents, making local production of medicine prohibitively expensive." Here's are a few of the criticisms.
Case in point when he says, "When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that,." he's absolutely incorrect and he knows it. In third world countries, part of the battle against dehydration complications from diarrhea is making sure that everyone knows how to make things such as oral rehydration therapy. There are several programs that just try to get the word out to make sure everyone knows how to make the basic solution, which is water lightly sugared and salted, something most people can do at home. If they have the capability of doing a search about what to do if they have diarrhea, that information can save lives. Not to mention all the information they can learn to help prevent it from happening again, such as learning to boil their water before drinking.
There is absolutely nothing more important than information. It's absolutely great to go out there and vaccinate people and provide them with food supplies. I'm not saying he should stop providing help, but ensuring that more people have access to the internet isn't just about getting them on facebook. It does have the potential to save many more lives, especially in the long run.
Okay, maybe this is just whooshing over my head, but... "so the authorities have no hope of finding the actual terrorists"?
But, but, I WANT them to find the "actual terrorists".
I think the point is that they're using unacceptable methods to hunt for the actual terrorists which infringe on our rights. By making those unacceptable methods worthless, you remove the government's motivation in using them.
It's a fine idea, but I think what will actually happen is that the government will have no problem at all locking up everyone who tries that approach. I recommend instead that we stop fucking voting for any politicians that aren't doing anything to stop this. In the absence of candidates which agree with us on this issue, at least vote the incumbent out to send a message that you get a one-term max unless you respect our rights. That requires people to actually give a shit, but civil disobedience wouldn't work unless enough people give a shit anyway.
I actually agree with you in that location. I was just pointing out that singling out amazon is the wrong approach. Either everyone should pay more for this work or not.
$12/hour to sort boxes were I live is a little on the low side, in even bigger cities you would find no employees. Here even McDonalds is advertising over $10/hour for some shifts.
We don't pay that much for engineering interns where I work.
My opinion was just the opposite. If their goal was to make a fresh universe, to give them room for brand-new story lines, then the first movie was excellent. And again, if that was their goal, then they threw it all away with the second movie.
They succeeded in giving them room for brand-new story lines, but they did it with a horrible plot. Best described by the Honest Trailer.
Specifically: "Meet Nero: A Romulan out for vengeance after his home planet is destroyed. He'll be given a second chance to save his species when a black hole sends him back in time. But instead of warning his planet about their impending doom, he'll wait around drifting in space for 25 years."
the writing schools have been teaching this same classic shit for decades...it's actually at the point that if you're going to do something new that's going to be classic you might be better off on purpose veering off from it.
Well, there's a reason the school teaches it: it works. It's optimized storytelling to maximize the emotional effect on the reader / viewer. You absolutely can do better by purposefully veering off from it, but you shouldn't even attempt it before you've completely and absolutely mastered the formula. If you're a beginner, stick to the formula. If you're a master of the writing craft, by all means try something new to challenge yourself. The reason for it being that if you don't understand exactly the reason why each part of the formula is there, you can't possibly know when it's appropriate to change it.
.. but a lot of stuff done like that is shit, too.
And my explanation above is why that's true. You can be guaranteed that most things that veer off the formula will be crap, but also that just about everything that is the cream of the crop will also veer off the formula. If you're good enough to write the classics that will be studied 500 years after you are gone, you'll veer off the formula. If you're not that good, but want to write something people will still enjoy reading / viewing, then stick to the formula.
The problem with action movies of late is actually that they've changed the action movie formula on us. It used to be you'd get the action beats at very specific parts of the movie to punctuate the plot with. Something about 1/3rd of the way through after the exposition, then something bigger to get the audience excited about half way through, then a huge climax toward the end. Everything else was story, because they couldn't afford to blow up things for the duration of a 90 minute movie. These days, CGI is cheap. So if you watch Man of Steel, for example, you get a ton of action scenes punctuated by the plot. You see the huge battle on Krypton, then you completely skip the period he's growing up in Smallville because there can't be much action there. Instead, all of that is shown through flashbacks after action sequences in the present.
I like action movies, people. But the most important part of any movie is the plot. If you don't have that down, the action is irrelevant. Let's go back to the original formula.
See a gap more than 10 car lengths? You pass and nip in there. There's still 4 car lengths left!
The moment someone starts entering the lane in front of me, I start slowing down to regain my safe driving distance. It is not possible for them to enter the lane close enough to me where I couldn't safely brake unless they hit me while changing lanes, which is not me rear-ending them, it's them hitting me on the front side of the car. Otherwise, even if they enter my lane one inch ahead of me and start breaking hard, since their car can't stop instantaneously, and I've already slowing down when they initiated their maneuver, I'm going to be breaking in time.
She wanted him jailed and she succeeded in her goal. So, therefore what she did wasn't stupid.
That wasn't actually her goal, that was the strategy she used to accomplish her goal. Her goal was to protect the students of said elementary school. The fact she thought putting that guy in jail was a way of protecting those kids from a danger that never actually existed is what makes her stupid.
Double stupid because she's probably patting herself on the back, thinking she's a hero for preventing a massacre.
It's kind of a nuisance that the biggest fans of the 'white race' tend to be walking arguments against it. Why don't they try the "Ha! I'll show the mud races what's what by being a successful human being!" a bit more often?
Well, it's my argument for why free speech shouldn't be feared. A lot of people would like to ban hate speech because it's bigoted and hurtful to those who are on the receiving end. Of course it is. On the other hand, the best way of stamping out bigotry is by letting the bigots speak their mind and make clear to the world that their arguments have no merit.
Basically, the fact that KKK members are "walking arguments against it" is to be expected if they are indeed wrong about their positions. It's not surprising at all.
That's horrible advice. You are constantly running out of time, and you can't take your converted money with you when you finally run out.
Make us much money as necessary to live through your life without worrying about money. After that, convert any extra money into time. Work less, play more.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me post my version of the summary:
He had explosives residue all over him according to multiple tests
- The End
You can all put your race cards away now
Honestly, I think that justifies his questioning. It doesn't justify searching his home without informing him about it, if that part of the story really happened. A warrant needs to be issued and presented to him.
Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.
This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.
As I've pointed out before, if you think McCarthyism is wrong because he was accusing people who weren't communists of being communists, you don't get it. The problem with McCarthyism is that he was trying to hurt people for their political views. In this country, you have the right to be communist.
You're not objectively wrong, but that's not the problem. You're assuming the term cisgendered is a PC term, which from my understanding of what I read in Julia Serano's Whipping Girl is not where it comes from or what its intended use is.
Actually, I was just objecting directly to the sentence, "The whole point of not using the word 'normal' is to avoid saying that people who are not cisgendered are not normal." I don't have a problem with the word.
I've got absolutely nothing against gay or transgendered individuals. I think discrimination, and especially attempts to dehumanize others for who they are, as you've described, is despicable. That said, I do tend to be very much anti-PC. I think the proper response to someone trying to dehumanize transgendered individuals by saying they're not normal is to say, "no, we're not. What's your point? I assure you there are many ways in which you are not normal." Instead of being offended by words, or trying to change the usage of such words, I think any group being dehumanized wins these battles when we teach ourselves to not fall apart when words are used against us. Doing so robs them of their power.
I'm not saying that's easy to do, either. However, it's a better goal to aim for than trying to get everyone else to walk on eggshells.
You'll find that a binary random variable can't take a normal distribution.
You would be incorrect
Cisgendered means your brain gender matches your physical gender. The whole point of not using the word 'normal' is to avoid saying that people who are not cisgendered are not normal.
Which is stupid PC crap. Being transgendered isn't normal. Which is not to say that's a bad thing, they're just being offended for no reason. Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution. Most people are not transgendered, therefore being transgendered is not not normal.
By itself, not being normal isn't offensive. Most people can't run as fast as Usain Bolt, therefore Usain Bolt isn't normal. That's not an insult.
The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?
Generally speaking, we do agree as a society that convicted criminals lose some rights (although not all). I mean, normally I would say that it's not alright to hold someone against their will, but do you have an ethical objection to jails in general? Where exactly to draw the line is a complex ethical question that would be difficult to solve in this forum. I am personally not against taking the DNA from people when a warrant is issued in a case where DNA would be relevant evidence. That said, I've never researched the subject enough, and am willing to entertain the possibility I could be convinced otherwise.
The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.
That's not the analogy I meant to imply. I mean to say you may object to the use of GPS technology in order to have unmanned drones bomb locations without any human supervision. But you don't object to the researching of global positioning technologies in general simply because they would make that scenario possible. Similarly, I would object to the use of DNA by employers who want to avoid the risk of hiring someone prone to depression, which this research makes possible. But I don't object to the research. Knowledge is separate from ethics, and we should never be afraid to learn anything.
The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes.
Everything has been used for malicious purposes. We're typing on a computer right now. You may have used GPS to get someplace. Well, targetting computers in conjunction with GPS are used to kill people. I carry a pocket knife with me because it's often useful. People get stabbed with pocket knives. We use airplanes to quickly travel around the world. The military uses airplanes to drop bombs.
I'm not saying that means we should take things lightly. On the contrary, it means we need to be constantly vigilant of every action we take and examine the ethics behind them. It's far too easy to accidentally take a step too far as a result of tunnel vision when you have a particular goal. But you can't replace vigilance with ignorance. Scientists figuring out which specific genes are related to increased suicidal behavior? That's just knowledge. It's ethically neutral. When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, I'll be right there protesting with you. That's what leads to a Gattaca society.
Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is?
No, but I see how absolutely flawed yours is. It's called the straw man fallacy. Here's what you said:
To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
Emphasis mine in the quote above. Your argument is, of course, absolutely correct. Unfortunately it's not what I've claimed and it's not what this study claims. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. This is what I've said:
It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component.
A component, as in one factor out of many. In addition, I also said:
you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression
I didn't say you could test to see if someone has depression, I said you could test to see if they have an increased risk of getting depression. So now that we've cleared that up, I can address your other comments.
If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.
First of all, I'm pretty sure I would still not commit suicide. I would quit doing idiotic things and get my life back on track. And it would be fairly easy to do so under your scenario. That's not to say there's nothing that would make me consider suicide. If I found out today I had early-onset Alzheimer's, I would consider suicide before it gets to the point where I'm no longer capable of taking care of myself. If I found out I had terminal cancer and a sufficiently low probability of recovery through chemo, I might consider not suffering through chemo, and instead spending the rest of my relatively healthy life with family and friends, and committing suicide when the cancer effects get sufficiently bad. That's not to say I have a genetic predisposition to suicide, I probably don't.
That said, you know those stories of kids who get bullied on facebook and decide to commit suicide? Or those people who commit suicide after their boyfriend or girlfriend breaks up with them? The vast majority of people would never commit suicide under those circumstances. But if you have a genetic predisposition, it might be enough to send you over the edge. Detecting this and being aware you're at an increased risk could lead you to take steps to prevent it by forming a support network, going on medication, avoiding medication known to increase suicide rates, etc.
As a real example, I've paid for a genetic profile on myself and know that I am at increased risk for Type II diabetes. That doesn't mean I *have* Type II diabetes. It means I'm more careful about what I eat now, and watch my weight carefully. I also know I'm at increased risk for certain types of cancer, so I started getting screened for those at an earlier age to increase my chances of catching it early if I develop it. Which I might not.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ...
I didn't misread it, but I did misinterpret your comment. There were multiple ACs, and I thought you were referring to another one. The person you were replying to wasn't an AC, but he was replying to this AC comment which claimed nothing should be rigid ever. I thought you were supporting him, which made the rollbars comment strange.
So I apologize, but in my defense you didn't make it that clear who you were talking about. I was just following the thread.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver. That's not really backing up the AC.
You want to dissipate the energy with crumpling, but you don't want to crumple into the driver or passengers. That means that at some point it needs to get really rigid. Deform by a certain amount, but never deform beyond a particular point. Considering the NHTSA gave the vehicle 5 stars, I'm pretty sure their machine broke before crushing past the point it's not supposed to.
The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression.
It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.
The list of eugenics propaganda is getting longer, and I'll have to study this to determine if it needs to go there
Recognizing that our genes have an effect on us isn't "eugenics." It's common-sense. DNA controls the color of my eyes, my skin, the type of hair I have, my height, my body type, the relative chances I have of getting heart disease or certain types of cancer...why you would think it has no effect whatsoever on my mental health is beyond me. Studies only cross into eugenics if they start advocating people with certain genes shouldn't breed, or shouldn't breed with people with a different set of genes, or should be eliminated completely from the gene pool. Saying we have genetic differences, some of which provide advantages and other which provide disadvantages is just fact. Figuring out which genes are responsible for those advantages and disadvantages is science.
As soon as I read the headline, I was reminded of an earlier slashdot article from last year.
In the linked NIH study, drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day was associated with a lower risk of death. From all causes. This study is probably a follow up to the earlier study, and they came to the opposite conclusion.
Conclusion: not enough studies to change your daily habits one way or another. Obligatory xkcd
But who should be getting the abuse you advocate? The executives of the big publishers or the regular folks working for the industry to actually make games? I've disliked games before but that doesn't mean that I should be justified to spew vitriol at the coders, artists and others working in the industry.
Maybe, but I think there's something wrong with society when people aren't capable of taking criticism, however unjustified. If anyone is threatening to do these guys or their families physical harm, then that absolutely crosses the line, and they need to call the police. If they're talking about random people online talking about how much they hate a game and the developers who made it...grow the fuck up and develop a thicker skin. Either be proud of the work and ignore what people say, or listen to them if the criticism is valid and see what you can do to do better. If you can't stand it, then by all means do leave the industry.
When we release our work to the public, whatever that work happens to be, we open ourselves up for criticism. Sometimes that can be really hurtful as a combination of people being assholes and the time you've invested in doing the work. However, it comes with the territory, and if you can't take it, then maybe you shouldn't be in an industry where you release your work to the public. Maybe you should keep all your art under your bed and never show it to anyone.
Successful man, bright man, ruthless man, and entirely correct.
Bill Gates grew up. Page and Brin may still have some growing up to do, but Bezos has no excuse. And Musk's work has always been overrated, though it's almost geek suicide to suggest so.
Bullshit. He's doing PR against google for business reasons and because he can think he can sell people on what he's saying. The Gates Foundation does a lot of good for people in poor countries, but it also does a lot of good for Bill Gates. It really isn't entirely selfless. It's also used for tax avoidance and for promoting pharmaceutical patents around the world in countries that typically don't respect them. "Here, we'll donate these vaccines if you agree to recognize these patents, making local production of medicine prohibitively expensive." Here's are a few of the criticisms.
Case in point when he says, "When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that,." he's absolutely incorrect and he knows it. In third world countries, part of the battle against dehydration complications from diarrhea is making sure that everyone knows how to make things such as oral rehydration therapy. There are several programs that just try to get the word out to make sure everyone knows how to make the basic solution, which is water lightly sugared and salted, something most people can do at home. If they have the capability of doing a search about what to do if they have diarrhea, that information can save lives. Not to mention all the information they can learn to help prevent it from happening again, such as learning to boil their water before drinking.
There is absolutely nothing more important than information. It's absolutely great to go out there and vaccinate people and provide them with food supplies. I'm not saying he should stop providing help, but ensuring that more people have access to the internet isn't just about getting them on facebook. It does have the potential to save many more lives, especially in the long run.
Okay, maybe this is just whooshing over my head, but ... "so the authorities have no hope of finding the actual terrorists"?
But, but, I WANT them to find the "actual terrorists".
I think the point is that they're using unacceptable methods to hunt for the actual terrorists which infringe on our rights. By making those unacceptable methods worthless, you remove the government's motivation in using them.
It's a fine idea, but I think what will actually happen is that the government will have no problem at all locking up everyone who tries that approach. I recommend instead that we stop fucking voting for any politicians that aren't doing anything to stop this. In the absence of candidates which agree with us on this issue, at least vote the incumbent out to send a message that you get a one-term max unless you respect our rights. That requires people to actually give a shit, but civil disobedience wouldn't work unless enough people give a shit anyway.
I actually agree with you in that location. I was just pointing out that singling out amazon is the wrong approach. Either everyone should pay more for this work or not.
$12/hour to sort boxes were I live is a little on the low side, in even bigger cities you would find no employees. Here even McDonalds is advertising over $10/hour for some shifts.
We don't pay that much for engineering interns where I work.
My opinion was just the opposite. If their goal was to make a fresh universe, to give them room for brand-new story lines, then the first movie was excellent. And again, if that was their goal, then they threw it all away with the second movie.
They succeeded in giving them room for brand-new story lines, but they did it with a horrible plot. Best described by the Honest Trailer.
Specifically: "Meet Nero: A Romulan out for vengeance after his home planet is destroyed. He'll be given a second chance to save his species when a black hole sends him back in time. But instead of warning his planet about their impending doom, he'll wait around drifting in space for 25 years."
the writing schools have been teaching this same classic shit for decades...it's actually at the point that if you're going to do something new that's going to be classic you might be better off on purpose veering off from it.
Well, there's a reason the school teaches it: it works. It's optimized storytelling to maximize the emotional effect on the reader / viewer. You absolutely can do better by purposefully veering off from it, but you shouldn't even attempt it before you've completely and absolutely mastered the formula. If you're a beginner, stick to the formula. If you're a master of the writing craft, by all means try something new to challenge yourself. The reason for it being that if you don't understand exactly the reason why each part of the formula is there, you can't possibly know when it's appropriate to change it.
.. but a lot of stuff done like that is shit, too.
And my explanation above is why that's true. You can be guaranteed that most things that veer off the formula will be crap, but also that just about everything that is the cream of the crop will also veer off the formula. If you're good enough to write the classics that will be studied 500 years after you are gone, you'll veer off the formula. If you're not that good, but want to write something people will still enjoy reading / viewing, then stick to the formula.
The problem with action movies of late is actually that they've changed the action movie formula on us. It used to be you'd get the action beats at very specific parts of the movie to punctuate the plot with. Something about 1/3rd of the way through after the exposition, then something bigger to get the audience excited about half way through, then a huge climax toward the end. Everything else was story, because they couldn't afford to blow up things for the duration of a 90 minute movie. These days, CGI is cheap. So if you watch Man of Steel, for example, you get a ton of action scenes punctuated by the plot. You see the huge battle on Krypton, then you completely skip the period he's growing up in Smallville because there can't be much action there. Instead, all of that is shown through flashbacks after action sequences in the present.
I like action movies, people. But the most important part of any movie is the plot. If you don't have that down, the action is irrelevant. Let's go back to the original formula.
It belongs in a museum! </Indy>
And braking. At some point I'm going to start actually reading what I've written while in preview, before I submit.
See a gap more than 10 car lengths? You pass and nip in there. There's still 4 car lengths left!
The moment someone starts entering the lane in front of me, I start slowing down to regain my safe driving distance. It is not possible for them to enter the lane close enough to me where I couldn't safely brake unless they hit me while changing lanes, which is not me rear-ending them, it's them hitting me on the front side of the car. Otherwise, even if they enter my lane one inch ahead of me and start breaking hard, since their car can't stop instantaneously, and I've already slowing down when they initiated their maneuver, I'm going to be breaking in time.
She wanted him jailed and she succeeded in her goal. So, therefore what she did wasn't stupid.
That wasn't actually her goal, that was the strategy she used to accomplish her goal. Her goal was to protect the students of said elementary school. The fact she thought putting that guy in jail was a way of protecting those kids from a danger that never actually existed is what makes her stupid.
Double stupid because she's probably patting herself on the back, thinking she's a hero for preventing a massacre.
If you're going into the aeronautics industry, you should be able to easily sell the fact that you have a pilot's understanding of airplanes.
If you're applying somewhere where your piloting experience wouldn't be relevant at all, then don't mention it other than in your employment history.
It's kind of a nuisance that the biggest fans of the 'white race' tend to be walking arguments against it. Why don't they try the "Ha! I'll show the mud races what's what by being a successful human being!" a bit more often?
Well, it's my argument for why free speech shouldn't be feared. A lot of people would like to ban hate speech because it's bigoted and hurtful to those who are on the receiving end. Of course it is. On the other hand, the best way of stamping out bigotry is by letting the bigots speak their mind and make clear to the world that their arguments have no merit.
Basically, the fact that KKK members are "walking arguments against it" is to be expected if they are indeed wrong about their positions. It's not surprising at all.
Time == money, after all.
That's horrible advice. You are constantly running out of time, and you can't take your converted money with you when you finally run out.
Make us much money as necessary to live through your life without worrying about money. After that, convert any extra money into time. Work less, play more.