If you're letting your kid go in the street because it's a residential street and the speed limit is lower, you're the one endangering your kid, not some guy breaking the speed limit.
I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!
Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.
I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.
With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"
Your knowledge of how science works comes from sci-fi movies and conservative propaganda.
Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.
You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...
And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.
You've never read any books on evolution or geology....
There are too much politics involved.
You've never read anything about medical research...
We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.
You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.
You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.
There does need to be a modifier for action movies and probably some other genres of movies.
I mean, "Debbie does Dallas" has far worse acting and plot than anything in superman vs batman I'm sure, but I don't hear whining about DDD. Why do people accept you watch one entirely for the "action" and shitty quality otherwise is okay but not the other?
If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.
I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.
Some people will pirate even given other options. But paranoia about that tiny segment of the consumer population isn't justified and is a stupid reason not to do this.
Why are you so sure it would do that? Tiers of movies haven't had much to do with release method in a while. Studios will still be able to promote blockbusters just as much as they do now and ignore direct to video types just as well.
It's not like they show a trailer for some big movie and the voiceover proudly announces "This one is NOT going straight to video! That means it's good probably!"
(in the future)
"SpaceX landed humans on mars."
Me: AWESOME!
"Yeah, but they USED GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO DO IT! They were supposed to use PRIVATE FUNDING!"
Me: Sorry, couldn't hear your boring blather about boring money sources, too busy thinking about how awesome it was that we landed on mars!
"Well see, taxes-"
Me: BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS!!!
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
People tend to forget that the last time that happened, the terrorists didn't have any bombs whatsoever. They just bluffed. 9/11 worked because everyone assumed hijackers would try to live and everyone was safer going along with it because that's what had happened before. Security was ineffective because it's basic assumptions were turned upside down.
That would be exactly true of the gate lines today: we assume terrorists would only care about the plane because last time they only cared about the plane, so we completely ignore another gaping security flaw. The number of terrorists it would take to bring down a plane could probably be more "effectively" used at separate airports in the pre-security line.
Hope I'm not giving Trump ideas here for how to unite the country behind him...
I don't give a goddamn fuck about changing people's hearts and minds. The MRA sexists, the alt-right nazi fucks, the 4-chan high school trolls, the genuinely unhinged infowars people, and the thousands of people who simply want to threaten people online can continue with their shit forever. Great, more power to them. I think they should bring back 4-chan, and make a bunch of other #-chans for them. Infowars should make it's own twitter. Those idiots weren't realizing they would be doing everyone a service by shooting themselves in the head while they were on twitter.
But on the actual twitter, hateful and bigoted people can turn people worth following away. I dunno, it's just a hypothesis I haven't investigated. But I'm more than willing to risk it. If getting rid of a million Milo and Spencer type alt accounts causes even one educated, rational person to say "Hey, maybe Twitter ISN'T a complete cesspit and I should try it," THEN WELL FUCKING WORTH IT.
When you say "innovative" I think new like the first iphone after I had a fliphone, or like CRISPR DNA editing. Tech bros say innovation though and mean "This iphone doesn't have headphone plugs!"
Walmart pretending to be "innovating" means we should probably just give up the word entirely, it's fucking dead.
Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc... those are not CEO choices, those are consumer choices.
Call me cynical, but I keep going back to the MIB quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Consumers as a mass of people don't make "choices." In big groups, we behave more like a herd. A stampeding herd of cows doesn't "choose" to run off a cliff, the collective is dumber than any individual. It's up to the ranchers to make decisions for the good of the cows.
... not that I expect CEOs to actually make decisions for the good of society unless they're forced to. Just that I really really really don't think consumers are capable of it.
I found this link. Ischemic is blocked and Hemorrhagic is bleeding. It sounds like there are signs of either and a CT or MRI can discriminate between the two. I assume there are borderline cases where they can't make a call, maybe like in minor stroke cases? Which I'm assuming yours was?
In any event, I'd be surprised if stroke was the only application for this. I'd assume this would be useful for other parts of the body deprived of blood flow. From my limited understanding, blood block and tissue death can happen in hernias in the guts, fingers and toes with certain blood pressure medications, and probably a bunch of other places.
I'm not a real doctor, so no idea if this is something that would only be useful in brains in a stroke, just seems like the potential uses for it are more than just one big thing like strokes, even if it's unlikely to ever be used to treat anything. (Most drug candidates turn out to not be good for anything really.)
Dude, you're on an aging, mostly white discussion board devoted to technology: If you want to troll slashdotters, say something about how it's important to cut research funding.
"I'll be so sad when they cut funding for useless nuclear fusion research, LOL, we don't need another chernobyl. We should spend the money on copyright protection instead, crack down on linux ripping off windows!"
What a weirdly self-complimentary nightmare scenario. I suspect no one is going to pay money for pictures of your penis, sorry.
Moreover, whatever is stopping him from doing that now with his camera phone, that would have been the same thing preventing him from using glass to do that.
Nonsense, a lot of people wanted them. I wanted one.
Privacy concerns helped kill it for one. Because the threat to your privacy isn't the NSA or CCTV cams everywhere or facebook on your phone or the two cameras on it. No no, it's a grainy camera on some tech bro's head evidently.
It would be worth paying more for meat if it meant less contribution to antibiotic resistant pathogens. I don't know how these cultured meats are going to be kept sanitary in mass production, I suppose it's possible that some unethical meat growing labs could use a lot of medicinally important antibiotics and cause the same problems. But I suspect there are more options for sterilization once you don't have to grow a whole animal.
Nonsense. People take offense to things they disagree with politically no matter how nicely you put it.
There have been decades of "Captain planet needs YOUR HELP you special snowflake!" Didn't work, people convinced themselves that climate change was a lie and anyone swayed by the evidence it was simply hated coal country.
Here, for example, DogDude was not bashing you or anyone more than was absolutely necessary. GP was making a dumb argument.
Americans like medical science and the results though. Remember, we're talking about science research? There was a bunch of cuts targeted to environmental monitoring, which is likely the real intended cuts, but right up there at the beginning of the list, there was a big cut for NIH funding, the agency that is trying to cure cancer? Americans = not fond of cancer.
In fairness, there are parts that are clearly designed to attract all the protest and anger and then have it evaporate when they drop it. The NIH cuts are part, possibly all of that scheme. Newt Gingrich and a lot of other people in the Trump party are strongly in favor of INCREASING funding the NIH. They likely realize that what the NIH works on will benefit them more than an additional 100 warplanes on top of the fuckload we already have would.
I mean, it could turn out to pass that the NIH does get cut, dumber things have happened with this administration. It might have been a mistake that Trump will just run with.
And not just the right, or the left. Not just Dems or reps. This is how the whole world sees you all, as a nation.
"the average american" didn't and doesn't want for Trump, and didn't vote for him, let's remember that. You're right that the rest of the world, like an unfortunate amount of americans don't care about the important details, they just want to seem above political fights. Americans are, after all, pretty average people. People in general don't like jumping into a political fight because it makes us feel unclean. Makes it harder to pretend we're superior to both sides. But when facing the consequences we're facing now, it's more than just arrogant. People who can't or won't tell a difference between the party of Trump and the party of Obama/HRC are the people responsible for the current administration doing what it is doing right now. Whatever passes will be because of people like you who don't care to call someone right and someone wrong and risk being wrong yourself.
I would guess that there are orders of magnitude more people who would be interesting in being able to fix their iphone screen than there are small farmers who are just trying to replace the parts on pa's old tractor with money and parts from under the old feather mattress.
Pass a bill saying "except for farm equipment." John Deere lobbyists will back off, the vast majority of Minnesotans will be able to fix their electronics, everyone wins except for some mega farm corporations who can afford it anyway and big tech. Not the most satisfying outcome, but seriously, give it up with the small farmer bit. They're not worth worrying about even though the right wing acts like they're the only true Americans.
You're right, "relatively okay" would be the way to put it and it would still be charitable. They do appear to be taking steps to limit legal immigration as well to only the rich. I was not under the impression they were FOR immigration so long as it was legal, I doubt anyone falls for their line on that.
Slashdot Mirror
It might not actually: all that has been true of gamestop for years.
When I worked there a decade ago, it was clear who their customer base was: idiot teens with no impulse control.
me: "I can give you only $3 for this game, that's not even a tenth of the price of the game you're-"
Kid: "gimmie!"
But if a car is doing 25 mph and hits a kid, it's just going to tickle?
I'm not having much luck finding any hard data on what the average car vs pedestrian speed is, but I did find that speeding is only a factor in 28% of fatal car crashes.
If you're letting your kid go in the street because it's a residential street and the speed limit is lower, you're the one endangering your kid, not some guy breaking the speed limit.
I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!
Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.
Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.
No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.
Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.
I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.
Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.
With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"
Only problem there is 17 million stolen by Chicago is chump change.
Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.
You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...
And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.
You've never read any books on evolution or geology....
There are too much politics involved.
You've never read anything about medical research...
We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.
You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.
You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.
There does need to be a modifier for action movies and probably some other genres of movies.
I mean, "Debbie does Dallas" has far worse acting and plot than anything in superman vs batman I'm sure, but I don't hear whining about DDD. Why do people accept you watch one entirely for the "action" and shitty quality otherwise is okay but not the other?
You use bandwidth without paying for it.
If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.
I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.
It's making a change of some type, no one really knows any details, so naturally slashdotters assume it's going to kill itself.
I assume someone last time pointed out that itunes music managed to make something of a profit despite music piracy being really really really easy.
Most consumers don't pirate. A lot of those of us who do tend to do it less when paying is an option. When I pirate, it's entirely because of extra hoops I have to jump through like having to sign up for cable to watch HBO to watch game of thrones, or "no you have to go to the movie theater to watch that movie you want to watch or wait a few months."
Some people will pirate even given other options. But paranoia about that tiny segment of the consumer population isn't justified and is a stupid reason not to do this.
Why are you so sure it would do that? Tiers of movies haven't had much to do with release method in a while. Studios will still be able to promote blockbusters just as much as they do now and ignore direct to video types just as well.
It's not like they show a trailer for some big movie and the voiceover proudly announces "This one is NOT going straight to video! That means it's good probably!"
(in the future)
"SpaceX landed humans on mars."
Me: AWESOME!
"Yeah, but they USED GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO DO IT! They were supposed to use PRIVATE FUNDING!"
Me: Sorry, couldn't hear your boring blather about boring money sources, too busy thinking about how awesome it was that we landed on mars!
"Well see, taxes-"
Me: BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS!!!
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
People tend to forget that the last time that happened, the terrorists didn't have any bombs whatsoever. They just bluffed. 9/11 worked because everyone assumed hijackers would try to live and everyone was safer going along with it because that's what had happened before. Security was ineffective because it's basic assumptions were turned upside down.
That would be exactly true of the gate lines today: we assume terrorists would only care about the plane because last time they only cared about the plane, so we completely ignore another gaping security flaw. The number of terrorists it would take to bring down a plane could probably be more "effectively" used at separate airports in the pre-security line.
Hope I'm not giving Trump ideas here for how to unite the country behind him...
I don't give a goddamn fuck about changing people's hearts and minds. The MRA sexists, the alt-right nazi fucks, the 4-chan high school trolls, the genuinely unhinged infowars people, and the thousands of people who simply want to threaten people online can continue with their shit forever. Great, more power to them. I think they should bring back 4-chan, and make a bunch of other #-chans for them. Infowars should make it's own twitter. Those idiots weren't realizing they would be doing everyone a service by shooting themselves in the head while they were on twitter.
But on the actual twitter, hateful and bigoted people can turn people worth following away. I dunno, it's just a hypothesis I haven't investigated. But I'm more than willing to risk it. If getting rid of a million Milo and Spencer type alt accounts causes even one educated, rational person to say "Hey, maybe Twitter ISN'T a complete cesspit and I should try it," THEN WELL FUCKING WORTH IT.
When did silicon valley define "innovative" to mean "Almost as boring as the same old shit"?
This jet.com for example appears to be amazon as it has existed since 1998, except prices are going to be even harder to figure out. Oops, I'm sorry, I mean "ALGORITHMS! MAGIC! "LOWER" PRICES!"
When you say "innovative" I think new like the first iphone after I had a fliphone, or like CRISPR DNA editing. Tech bros say innovation though and mean "This iphone doesn't have headphone plugs!"
Walmart pretending to be "innovating" means we should probably just give up the word entirely, it's fucking dead.
Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc ... those are not CEO choices, those are consumer choices.
Call me cynical, but I keep going back to the MIB quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Consumers as a mass of people don't make "choices." In big groups, we behave more like a herd. A stampeding herd of cows doesn't "choose" to run off a cliff, the collective is dumber than any individual. It's up to the ranchers to make decisions for the good of the cows.
... not that I expect CEOs to actually make decisions for the good of society unless they're forced to. Just that I really really really don't think consumers are capable of it.
I found this link. Ischemic is blocked and Hemorrhagic is bleeding. It sounds like there are signs of either and a CT or MRI can discriminate between the two. I assume there are borderline cases where they can't make a call, maybe like in minor stroke cases? Which I'm assuming yours was?
In any event, I'd be surprised if stroke was the only application for this. I'd assume this would be useful for other parts of the body deprived of blood flow. From my limited understanding, blood block and tissue death can happen in hernias in the guts, fingers and toes with certain blood pressure medications, and probably a bunch of other places.
I'm not a real doctor, so no idea if this is something that would only be useful in brains in a stroke, just seems like the potential uses for it are more than just one big thing like strokes, even if it's unlikely to ever be used to treat anything. (Most drug candidates turn out to not be good for anything really.)
Dude, you're on an aging, mostly white discussion board devoted to technology: If you want to troll slashdotters, say something about how it's important to cut research funding.
"I'll be so sad when they cut funding for useless nuclear fusion research, LOL, we don't need another chernobyl. We should spend the money on copyright protection instead, crack down on linux ripping off windows!"
What a weirdly self-complimentary nightmare scenario. I suspect no one is going to pay money for pictures of your penis, sorry.
Moreover, whatever is stopping him from doing that now with his camera phone, that would have been the same thing preventing him from using glass to do that.
Nonsense, a lot of people wanted them. I wanted one.
Privacy concerns helped kill it for one. Because the threat to your privacy isn't the NSA or CCTV cams everywhere or facebook on your phone or the two cameras on it. No no, it's a grainy camera on some tech bro's head evidently.
Also the thing was absurdly overhyped. The video announcing it made it seem like it would be a full view overlay, not like holding your phone up off to the side. But I'd have still maybe wanted one so I could read while walking around without looking down at my phone.
It would be worth paying more for meat if it meant less contribution to antibiotic resistant pathogens. I don't know how these cultured meats are going to be kept sanitary in mass production, I suppose it's possible that some unethical meat growing labs could use a lot of medicinally important antibiotics and cause the same problems. But I suspect there are more options for sterilization once you don't have to grow a whole animal.
Nonsense. People take offense to things they disagree with politically no matter how nicely you put it.
There have been decades of "Captain planet needs YOUR HELP you special snowflake!" Didn't work, people convinced themselves that climate change was a lie and anyone swayed by the evidence it was simply hated coal country.
Here, for example, DogDude was not bashing you or anyone more than was absolutely necessary. GP was making a dumb argument.
In fairness, there are parts that are clearly designed to attract all the protest and anger and then have it evaporate when they drop it. The NIH cuts are part, possibly all of that scheme. Newt Gingrich and a lot of other people in the Trump party are strongly in favor of INCREASING funding the NIH. They likely realize that what the NIH works on will benefit them more than an additional 100 warplanes on top of the fuckload we already have would.
I mean, it could turn out to pass that the NIH does get cut, dumber things have happened with this administration. It might have been a mistake that Trump will just run with.
And not just the right, or the left. Not just Dems or reps. This is how the whole world sees you all, as a nation.
"the average american" didn't and doesn't want for Trump, and didn't vote for him, let's remember that. You're right that the rest of the world, like an unfortunate amount of americans don't care about the important details, they just want to seem above political fights. Americans are, after all, pretty average people. People in general don't like jumping into a political fight because it makes us feel unclean. Makes it harder to pretend we're superior to both sides. But when facing the consequences we're facing now, it's more than just arrogant. People who can't or won't tell a difference between the party of Trump and the party of Obama/HRC are the people responsible for the current administration doing what it is doing right now. Whatever passes will be because of people like you who don't care to call someone right and someone wrong and risk being wrong yourself.
Red states' wet dreams involve small independent farming families sustaining themselves by the sweat of their brow independently.
If it helps pass good laws, sure. But it's worth pointing out that such people are myths now if they weren't always. There are two million farms in the us, and they're mostly mega corporation farms now. In a nation of 300 million people, that's really an insignificant part of the US.
I would guess that there are orders of magnitude more people who would be interesting in being able to fix their iphone screen than there are small farmers who are just trying to replace the parts on pa's old tractor with money and parts from under the old feather mattress.
Pass a bill saying "except for farm equipment." John Deere lobbyists will back off, the vast majority of Minnesotans will be able to fix their electronics, everyone wins except for some mega farm corporations who can afford it anyway and big tech. Not the most satisfying outcome, but seriously, give it up with the small farmer bit. They're not worth worrying about even though the right wing acts like they're the only true Americans.
You're right, "relatively okay" would be the way to put it and it would still be charitable. They do appear to be taking steps to limit legal immigration as well to only the rich. I was not under the impression they were FOR immigration so long as it was legal, I doubt anyone falls for their line on that.