That's how Liberals work eh? Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Ah, that explains why the liberal ACLU defended those westboro "God hates fags" people protesting military funerals. Because liberals hate gay people and love church.
Cherry-picking sympathetic journals while not even addressing the obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales is intellectually dishonest.
And rejecting studies just because of where they were published, without any contrary evidence, would be intellectually lazy...
This is the problem with you people, instead of rationally talking about what the problems are and practical things we can all do to help, you jump straight to the end of the world scenario
They treated us rationally decades ago, and everyone ignored their warnings.
Saying shit like that is the equivalent of saying that if we don't have mandatory internet ID and censorship, that pedophiles and terrorists are inevitably going to break into our homes in the middle of the night and rape our daughters, and take control of the nuclear power plants and run them up to 1000% causing Chernobylfukushimas at every generating station, respectively.
Except those things are obviously not true, while climate change seems true.
Both are hyperbole, and do nothing to get logical folks considering your point of view. Try being rational and practical instead of religious and fanatical for a change, and I bet you'll find people are a bit more receptive to your ideas.
Wait, a side of some movement is trying to achieve political gain? OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!! This MUST be unique to the debate about climate change, and the TOTALLY disproves their side! If some people are trying to use it for political gain, it MUST be totally invalid! Such people NEVER jump on the "right" side and try to exploit it.
A proposal need not break a constitutional amendment to become a big story (due to how juicy this would be) and attract unwanted attention from voters.
I'd hazard a guess that he's trying to pass this for his base or some other group he's trying to retain the support of, this doesn't sound like something the majority of voters would approve of. Thus, I'd guess he's trying to keep this a little quiet. My proposal would blow the story up in a bad light if it's not already front-page news, and he'd probably back away from it.
I think it's foolish to conclude "they both suck" and use that as an excuse to ignore politics entirely. For one thing, it's simplistic to view everything in terms of parties. Vote for the representative, not the party. I default to voting democrat, but both my senators came out in favor of sopa/pipa, so I probably won't be this time. For another, the parties themselves are semi-democratic. You can vote in the primaries: you can change either party.
Clearly the thing to do would be to start a porn site where the talent make political speeches against David Cameron. Then he'll be repressing political speech.
The airlines have a greater interest in ACTUAL security, as opposed to security theater though.
The groping and pornoscanners are a huge waste to convince the public that the government is protecting them from these ever-present, super scary terrorists that we need to elect them to fight. The terrorists are actually quite stupid and would never be able to pull off another 9/11. The only reason they succeeded is because the passengers thought it was in their best interests to go along with the terrorists. They were convinced there was a bomb on board, and if they waited, the terrorists would let them go. Everyone knows that is not the case anymore, AND the doors to the cockpit are locked now.
That is what has made us safer and only that. Everything else is just to convince the public that we're making progress, while preserving the fear-mongering that keeps certain politicians getting elected and keeps certain government organizations paid.
The airlines have little interest in fear mongering: it hurts them. Most people still fly, but the thought of some high school dropout molesting their children and/or TSA acting like al quaeda is around every corner hurts their business. Put it on them, even if the government pays for it, and they'll get rid of a lot of the security theater.
Not to say it would all be good. They'd no doubt use security as an excuse for their own purposes. Specifically, they'd raise the prices dramatically and start racial profiling like we haven't seen before.
Funny how religion bashing means making jokes about religious people. Meanwhile, religious people are busy saying everyone else is going to hell, judging everyone, and passing legislation to limit our rights. I guess the difference is humor, so here, this is not religion-bashing.
Religions are illogical and dangerous. Theyre generally hypocritical by their own standards, so its not that much of a suprise that they're irresponsible with their computer security. Curbing their influence on modern society is in our best interests.
Science, especially medical science, often involves testing and verifying things we think are pretty obvious. Sometimes, what we think is obvious is actually wrong.
More to the point, this proves that current safeguards are insufficient. Were NFL players running around without helmets and doing spear tackles (the rugby definition OR the football tackle where you basically ram headfirst into the target), then yeah, this would probably be a more foregone conclusion.
Oh, good. We've moved on to how unfair it is that not everyone gets to use the N word, and reverse discrimination. There are so few places on the internet where you can discuss things like this.
Preach on how it's silly that people are offended by words, please.
You're complaining that the budget on this production was too small? He's a college student. I'm sure you could send him a check and he'd improve the quality for you.
Biologists have always been risking our extinction. I mean, the Cuban Sniffle Crisis? Hello? Didn't we learn ANYTHING from that?
I'm sorry, what's that? Cuban MISSILE crisis? Humanity has been flirting with it's own extinction through science for quite a while now? We still have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, and this virus hasn't even been created yet?
Well, I mean, still, DEADLY DISEASES, we've never played around with that before, that's unique! What are we thinking?
What? The US continues to maintain smallpox stocks long after it's been eliminated in the wild for no obvious reason? And a naturally-occurring disease like Ebola could get into a major international airport and have much the same effect?
Hmm... so there's not really much to be scared about with this specific paper, we're constantly on the edge of catastrophe? Well then... that's oddly reassuring, kinda...
If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.
Okay, just please don't vote for coal or for keeping gas prices artificially low and you can drive whatever you want wherever you feel like as far as I'm concerned. About a third of our carbon comes from coal fired power plants, and that's idiotic. Gas subsidies for personal transport is also idiotic. We don't need to be forcing people to give up their beloved trucks, we just shouldn't be paying part of the bill.
That's welcome news that Pakistan is not as evil as their talking points make them out to be, but I'm skeptical. Osama was just down the street for years. They were so hamstrung by fear of the far right that they couldn't send an anonymous note to us saying "Hey, uh, we didn't tell you this, but 123 main street, Abbottabad. Check it out. Thanks in advance, and know that the whole outrage thing we're going to pull is just an act."?
Also, I wonder what sort of reaction there would be if instead of autism, this paper was dealing with a potential to detect/fix some more politically sensitive group such as the GLBT community
Not sure how that matters. We couldn't do anything about the genes. Gene therapy never really got off the ground. We can't reprogram DNA. Even if we could in the next few years, we STILL probably couldn't do anything about autism. The structure of the brain isn't completely plastic, it's likely that the disease will maintain itself even absent the genetics that made it autistic in the first place.
So would a "politically sensitive" community like GLB get upset if someone looked into the genetic causes? Maybe, until someone explained to them that no one was trying to "fix" them. If they're sensitive, it's undoubtedly due to discrimination, hatred, and misguided religious attempts to "cure" them with abuse.
(and not for nothing, but transgendered individuals, the "t" in that acronym you just used, they do fix that with surgery.)
So what are the likely consequences of this terrible, terrible idea?
It won't stop chinese knockoffs, espionage, and piracy. It will be used against legitimate startups who aren't part of the big boys' club. "You started a software company in your garage? Well, you should have invested in lawyers to find out if you were violating any patents. Which were secret. See you in court, you brought this on yourself. You can settle by giving us everything including your garage."
The ultimate goal being some licensing scheme where you can't design a new product or invent something unless you are working for a company approved by some regulatory department staffed by apple, MS, facebook, and sony investors.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how Liberals work eh? Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Ah, that explains why the liberal ACLU defended those westboro "God hates fags" people protesting military funerals. Because liberals hate gay people and love church.
While I'll admit that iphone knockoffs have sometimes seemed to be better than the original, I have no idea how I'd go about checking if I'm actually going to get something that actually turns on, let alone has half the capabilities of an ipad.
Cherry-picking sympathetic journals while not even addressing the obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales is intellectually dishonest.
And rejecting studies just because of where they were published, without any contrary evidence, would be intellectually lazy...
It's amazing to me that you'd put down a guy who has worked tirelessly to promote science in a country that is failing at science.
If you're trolling, congratulations, you've annoyed me.
This is the problem with you people, instead of rationally talking about what the problems are and practical things we can all do to help, you jump straight to the end of the world scenario
They treated us rationally decades ago, and everyone ignored their warnings.
Saying shit like that is the equivalent of saying that if we don't have mandatory internet ID and censorship, that pedophiles and terrorists are inevitably going to break into our homes in the middle of the night and rape our daughters, and take control of the nuclear power plants and run them up to 1000% causing Chernobylfukushimas at every generating station, respectively.
Except those things are obviously not true, while climate change seems true.
Both are hyperbole, and do nothing to get logical folks considering your point of view. Try being rational and practical instead of religious and fanatical for a change, and I bet you'll find people are a bit more receptive to your ideas.
WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON?!?
Wait, a side of some movement is trying to achieve political gain? OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!! This MUST be unique to the debate about climate change, and the TOTALLY disproves their side! If some people are trying to use it for political gain, it MUST be totally invalid! Such people NEVER jump on the "right" side and try to exploit it.
Am I a racist or a jackass? You narrowed it down to one of those two from me suggesting the airlines might try racial profiling?
Gee, this sounds like an invitation to a productive conversation with an intelligent person.
A proposal need not break a constitutional amendment to become a big story (due to how juicy this would be) and attract unwanted attention from voters.
I'd hazard a guess that he's trying to pass this for his base or some other group he's trying to retain the support of, this doesn't sound like something the majority of voters would approve of. Thus, I'd guess he's trying to keep this a little quiet. My proposal would blow the story up in a bad light if it's not already front-page news, and he'd probably back away from it.
I think it's foolish to conclude "they both suck" and use that as an excuse to ignore politics entirely. For one thing, it's simplistic to view everything in terms of parties. Vote for the representative, not the party. I default to voting democrat, but both my senators came out in favor of sopa/pipa, so I probably won't be this time. For another, the parties themselves are semi-democratic. You can vote in the primaries: you can change either party.
It's infuriating when politicians just don't get it.
It's more infuriating when politicians DO get it, and do what they're going to do anyway.
Clearly the thing to do would be to start a porn site where the talent make political speeches against David Cameron. Then he'll be repressing political speech.
5 replies, all with the same xkcd comic. You were the first, and only one to post not AC, so you get the ribbon. First place!
The airlines have a greater interest in ACTUAL security, as opposed to security theater though.
The groping and pornoscanners are a huge waste to convince the public that the government is protecting them from these ever-present, super scary terrorists that we need to elect them to fight. The terrorists are actually quite stupid and would never be able to pull off another 9/11. The only reason they succeeded is because the passengers thought it was in their best interests to go along with the terrorists. They were convinced there was a bomb on board, and if they waited, the terrorists would let them go. Everyone knows that is not the case anymore, AND the doors to the cockpit are locked now.
That is what has made us safer and only that. Everything else is just to convince the public that we're making progress, while preserving the fear-mongering that keeps certain politicians getting elected and keeps certain government organizations paid.
The airlines have little interest in fear mongering: it hurts them. Most people still fly, but the thought of some high school dropout molesting their children and/or TSA acting like al quaeda is around every corner hurts their business. Put it on them, even if the government pays for it, and they'll get rid of a lot of the security theater.
Not to say it would all be good. They'd no doubt use security as an excuse for their own purposes. Specifically, they'd raise the prices dramatically and start racial profiling like we haven't seen before.
Funny how religion bashing means making jokes about religious people. Meanwhile, religious people are busy saying everyone else is going to hell, judging everyone, and passing legislation to limit our rights. I guess the difference is humor, so here, this is not religion-bashing.
Religions are illogical and dangerous. Theyre generally hypocritical by their own standards, so its not that much of a suprise that they're irresponsible with their computer security. Curbing their influence on modern society is in our best interests.
You sound like one of those people who actually believe we landed on the moon! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
Science, especially medical science, often involves testing and verifying things we think are pretty obvious. Sometimes, what we think is obvious is actually wrong.
More to the point, this proves that current safeguards are insufficient. Were NFL players running around without helmets and doing spear tackles (the rugby definition OR the football tackle where you basically ram headfirst into the target), then yeah, this would probably be a more foregone conclusion.
Oh, good. We've moved on to how unfair it is that not everyone gets to use the N word, and reverse discrimination. There are so few places on the internet where you can discuss things like this.
Preach on how it's silly that people are offended by words, please.
Also a term for a sexual fetish involving latex. Double whammy.
You're complaining that the budget on this production was too small? He's a college student. I'm sure you could send him a check and he'd improve the quality for you.
Biologists have always been risking our extinction. I mean, the Cuban Sniffle Crisis? Hello? Didn't we learn ANYTHING from that?
I'm sorry, what's that? Cuban MISSILE crisis? Humanity has been flirting with it's own extinction through science for quite a while now? We still have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, and this virus hasn't even been created yet?
Well, I mean, still, DEADLY DISEASES, we've never played around with that before, that's unique! What are we thinking?
What? The US continues to maintain smallpox stocks long after it's been eliminated in the wild for no obvious reason? And a naturally-occurring disease like Ebola could get into a major international airport and have much the same effect?
Hmm... so there's not really much to be scared about with this specific paper, we're constantly on the edge of catastrophe? Well then... that's oddly reassuring, kinda...
If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.
Okay, just please don't vote for coal or for keeping gas prices artificially low and you can drive whatever you want wherever you feel like as far as I'm concerned. About a third of our carbon comes from coal fired power plants, and that's idiotic. Gas subsidies for personal transport is also idiotic. We don't need to be forcing people to give up their beloved trucks, we just shouldn't be paying part of the bill.
That's welcome news that Pakistan is not as evil as their talking points make them out to be, but I'm skeptical. Osama was just down the street for years. They were so hamstrung by fear of the far right that they couldn't send an anonymous note to us saying "Hey, uh, we didn't tell you this, but 123 main street, Abbottabad. Check it out. Thanks in advance, and know that the whole outrage thing we're going to pull is just an act."?
Also, I wonder what sort of reaction there would be if instead of autism, this paper was dealing with a potential to detect/fix some more politically sensitive group such as the GLBT community
Not sure how that matters. We couldn't do anything about the genes. Gene therapy never really got off the ground. We can't reprogram DNA. Even if we could in the next few years, we STILL probably couldn't do anything about autism. The structure of the brain isn't completely plastic, it's likely that the disease will maintain itself even absent the genetics that made it autistic in the first place.
So would a "politically sensitive" community like GLB get upset if someone looked into the genetic causes? Maybe, until someone explained to them that no one was trying to "fix" them. If they're sensitive, it's undoubtedly due to discrimination, hatred, and misguided religious attempts to "cure" them with abuse.
(and not for nothing, but transgendered individuals, the "t" in that acronym you just used, they do fix that with surgery.)
There's a difference between "News for nerds" and "News that ONLY nerds would appreciate."
That said, I don't think this story should be here, but I didn't to to firehose, and did nothing to keep it from appearing here, so I won't complain.
So what are the likely consequences of this terrible, terrible idea?
It won't stop chinese knockoffs, espionage, and piracy. It will be used against legitimate startups who aren't part of the big boys' club. "You started a software company in your garage? Well, you should have invested in lawyers to find out if you were violating any patents. Which were secret. See you in court, you brought this on yourself. You can settle by giving us everything including your garage."
The ultimate goal being some licensing scheme where you can't design a new product or invent something unless you are working for a company approved by some regulatory department staffed by apple, MS, facebook, and sony investors.