Those of you who like this - what happens when FB (and Google, etc. since they are all working together now) decide that stuff you are interested in is something they must protect the public against?
Or is my post to dangerous, and it might trick you into thinking? Best remove it...
Actually.....
As the three points used to denote the triangle are on a sphere (the Earth... or a close approximation of a sphere at such scale), there would be more than 180 degrees inside the triangle if it were measured on the surface of the ocean.
Eh, browsing, word processing, point and click games, scanning, etc. So no, nothing too taxing. Usually.
I played a bit with visual studio on it. Performance was pedestrian but acceptable.
I work from home on it but I remote desktop to a more powerful work computer.
Truly unbiased hiring would not produce popular distributions of "underrepresented" groups - unless, of course, that is part of the criteria that it is given for success.
Is that because you can't because it would eat up too much of your income? Or is it that you easily could, but won't because off some missing utility value to you?
I see so many of these "I won't spend $x on a phone" posts and I'm never sure if people are just thrifty or if they're dressing up lack of disposable income as thrift or some kind of insight into lack of utility.
Is that an actual question?
Like all economic actors, I won't trade $1000 for something that doesn't seem worth $1000 to me.
A phone is less important to me than a desktop, so generally speaking, I am unwilling to spend more on a phone than on a desktop. And I can get a desktop that does what I want for much less than $1000.
In any case, the Moto E4 that I got for $100 last year does everything that I want quite nicely.
I probably have more "disposable" income left over than most people who buy $1000 phones, because I don't dispose of it quite as freely as they do, lol
Know what will happen because of this? Every other nation on the planet that has a space program will now be compelled to do the same. Likely won't be long before there are nuclear warheads in orbit from one country or another. So much for peaceful space exploration. More fucking Dominionist shit from Pence and the Trump administration. I hope Congress votes it down.
Right. Every other nation on earth was just going to sing kumbaya in space, now and evermore. There would never be any need to have a military presence in space. If only that mean old Trump hadn't done this.
I can't tell if you really believe that, or if it's a schtick. Maybe you do.
Poor design. All over the world there are nuclear plants operating just fine in hot tropical and subtropical climates, including the USA. Never has been a problem. So the Euros are doing something wrong with their designs.
Almost all the European nukes are running just fine, full output. Only a few have cut back due to discharge heat limits.
This would be meaningful if the USA actually had a left. It has a "center", a "Center-Right" (Democrat), a "Far Right" (Republican) and an "Alt-Right".
Lefties may do the same as righties - but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?
Thanks for demonstrating nothing but your own position on the spectrum.
I suppose if you are insanely far to the left, everything looks "right" to you...
How about this instead, all should be treated equally under law and that includes taxation laws. If those fuckers can get local and state tax exemptions, why the fuck can't the rest of the population get them, hardly fucking equal.
{...}
One set of tax rules, no fucking cheating, earn more, pay more because you fucking cunts, you are getting a bigger reward from society, so you should pay more.
There's a disconnect there somewhere... I thought you said you wanted everybody taxed equally?
OK, I'm on board... what shall that equal tax rate be; 25%? 35%? And everybody pays it, right - even the minimum wage guy? NO exceptions or exemptions? For anybody, since we're being all equal and all?
in America due to a Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United) political corruption is explicitly legal. Money is speech here and virtually all campaign finance laws get shot down as a result (despite literally centuries of case law to the contrary).
Distributing speech does indeed cost money - unless you want to be at the mercy of big corps like Facebook to distribute it for you. I'm sure that will be fairly and unbiased-ly done; such a corp would never promote those it prefers and suppress those it does not!
This is pathetic, we live in a society where we need to beg corporations to open offices and employee us! What a privilege it must be to have a job! To have the opportunity to trade our most precious commodity, time, for money!
Money is a claim on other people's labor and goods, so yes, you do need to exchange something for it. What's wrong with that?
If you've got something more valuable (to people who have money) on hand than your time, don't worry; there are folks who'd be glad to exchange money for it.
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Education today is the result of many decades of education experts.
Nobody gets a PhD, or massive new funding, for saying "er, yeah, keep doing the three Rs like what always worked." There are some misplaced incentives involved in this whole thing...
Or to put it another way, it's precisely the lack of royal pedigree that enables one to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
In the military I was rewarded for showing my ability to interpret the data in front of me, think up solutions, and explain how I got those conclusions to my superiors.
Same here.
It was a synthesis of "obey orders, follow instructions" and "think on your feet".
Some specialties gave you months of theory before you even got to execute any instructions. So you would have a background, and the necessary knowledge to think and be "smart" about your job.
If you were following orders/instructions and something didn't seem to make sense, you were to stop, put things in a safe condition, and run it up the chain of command. Preferably with an intelligent assessment of what was going on and possible courses of action.
You know the big thing missing from debates on how to best educate children?
People who actually know anything about educating children.
Instead of turning to an associate professor of political science, how about we turn to someone with a PHD in early childhood development? Or young childhood education?
Are you saying that those august people haven't been guiding public education for many decades?
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Education today is the result of many decades of education experts.
Nobody gets a PhD, or massive new funding, for saying "er, yeah, keep doing the three Rs like what always worked." There are some misplaced incentives involved in this whole thing...
Slashdot Mirror
I never thought I'd see the day when the Left likes a huge corporation buying up all the lawns in town and then banning lawn signs.
There's an infinite number of "lawns" in this situation, and Facebook can't buy them all.
True, it's not like FB and other major platforms would ever agree to remove something together.
Oh, wait ...
This is some serious paternalism.
Those of you who like this - what happens when FB (and Google, etc. since they are all working together now) decide that stuff you are interested in is something they must protect the public against?
Or is my post to dangerous, and it might trick you into thinking? Best remove it ...
I never thought I'd see the day when the Left likes a huge corporation buying up all the lawns in town and then banning lawn signs.
"Hey, it's private property after all!"
Actually..... As the three points used to denote the triangle are on a sphere (the Earth... or a close approximation of a sphere at such scale), there would be more than 180 degrees inside the triangle if it were measured on the surface of the ocean.
Cliff Claven! Long time no see!
I always forget "Smart Fridges" exist - probably because I can't see any reason for why.
Well, have to differentiate your product somehow ...
Brian Regan has some advice about that ...
You wouldn't like it when it's angry ...
Eh, browsing, word processing, point and click games, scanning, etc. So no, nothing too taxing. Usually. I played a bit with visual studio on it. Performance was pedestrian but acceptable. I work from home on it but I remote desktop to a more powerful work computer.
I use my shoes more than either my phone or desktop. But I don't spend $1000 on my shoes either.
Truly unbiased hiring would not produce popular distributions of "underrepresented" groups - unless, of course, that is part of the criteria that it is given for success.
Is that because you can't because it would eat up too much of your income? Or is it that you easily could, but won't because off some missing utility value to you?
I see so many of these "I won't spend $x on a phone" posts and I'm never sure if people are just thrifty or if they're dressing up lack of disposable income as thrift or some kind of insight into lack of utility.
Is that an actual question?
Like all economic actors, I won't trade $1000 for something that doesn't seem worth $1000 to me.
A phone is less important to me than a desktop, so generally speaking, I am unwilling to spend more on a phone than on a desktop. And I can get a desktop that does what I want for much less than $1000.
In any case, the Moto E4 that I got for $100 last year does everything that I want quite nicely.
I probably have more "disposable" income left over than most people who buy $1000 phones, because I don't dispose of it quite as freely as they do, lol
Know what will happen because of this? Every other nation on the planet that has a space program will now be compelled to do the same. Likely won't be long before there are nuclear warheads in orbit from one country or another. So much for peaceful space exploration. More fucking Dominionist shit from Pence and the Trump administration. I hope Congress votes it down.
Right. Every other nation on earth was just going to sing kumbaya in space, now and evermore. There would never be any need to have a military presence in space. If only that mean old Trump hadn't done this.
I can't tell if you really believe that, or if it's a schtick. Maybe you do.
I won't even buy a desktop computer for $1000.
They just stopped the recount when it got a bit embarrassing.
Yes, some sport personalities are more noteworthy than some obscure scientists. So what?
So the "problem" is that a woman professor somewhere didn't already have a Wikipedia article about her. Oy.
Poor design. All over the world there are nuclear plants operating just fine in hot tropical and subtropical climates, including the USA. Never has been a problem. So the Euros are doing something wrong with their designs.
Almost all the European nukes are running just fine, full output. Only a few have cut back due to discharge heat limits.
Oh. So, it's not an OMG problem?
The left and right do the exact same thing.
This would be meaningful if the USA actually had a left. It has a "center", a "Center-Right" (Democrat), a "Far Right" (Republican) and an "Alt-Right".
Lefties may do the same as righties - but there are few lefties in the USA - perhaps 1 called Bernie Sanders?
Thanks for demonstrating nothing but your own position on the spectrum.
I suppose if you are insanely far to the left, everything looks "right" to you ...
How about this instead, all should be treated equally under law and that includes taxation laws. If those fuckers can get local and state tax exemptions, why the fuck can't the rest of the population get them, hardly fucking equal.
{...}
One set of tax rules, no fucking cheating, earn more, pay more because you fucking cunts, you are getting a bigger reward from society, so you should pay more.
There's a disconnect there somewhere ... I thought you said you wanted everybody taxed equally?
OK, I'm on board ... what shall that equal tax rate be; 25%? 35%? And everybody pays it, right - even the minimum wage guy? NO exceptions or exemptions? For anybody, since we're being all equal and all?
What's that? No?
in America due to a Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United) political corruption is explicitly legal. Money is speech here and virtually all campaign finance laws get shot down as a result (despite literally centuries of case law to the contrary).
Distributing speech does indeed cost money - unless you want to be at the mercy of big corps like Facebook to distribute it for you. I'm sure that will be fairly and unbiased-ly done; such a corp would never promote those it prefers and suppress those it does not!
This is pathetic, we live in a society where we need to beg corporations to open offices and employee us! What a privilege it must be to have a job! To have the opportunity to trade our most precious commodity, time, for money!
Money is a claim on other people's labor and goods, so yes, you do need to exchange something for it. What's wrong with that?
If you've got something more valuable (to people who have money) on hand than your time, don't worry; there are folks who'd be glad to exchange money for it.
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Education today is the result of many decades of education experts.
Nobody gets a PhD, or massive new funding, for saying "er, yeah, keep doing the three Rs like what always worked." There are some misplaced incentives involved in this whole thing ...
Or to put it another way, it's precisely the lack of royal pedigree that enables one to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
In the military I was rewarded for showing my ability to interpret the data in front of me, think up solutions, and explain how I got those conclusions to my superiors.
Same here.
It was a synthesis of "obey orders, follow instructions" and "think on your feet".
Some specialties gave you months of theory before you even got to execute any instructions. So you would have a background, and the necessary knowledge to think and be "smart" about your job.
If you were following orders/instructions and something didn't seem to make sense, you were to stop, put things in a safe condition, and run it up the chain of command. Preferably with an intelligent assessment of what was going on and possible courses of action.
You know the big thing missing from debates on how to best educate children? People who actually know anything about educating children.
Instead of turning to an associate professor of political science, how about we turn to someone with a PHD in early childhood development? Or young childhood education?
Are you saying that those august people haven't been guiding public education for many decades?
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
To play devil's advocate, it's the experts who f'ed it up.
Education today is the result of many decades of education experts.
Nobody gets a PhD, or massive new funding, for saying "er, yeah, keep doing the three Rs like what always worked." There are some misplaced incentives involved in this whole thing ...
This is news?
But ... but ... to " normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members." Eek!!