Name a guy or woman you think is smart from the tech sector. Make them talk about entertainment or something they don't have a background in. "Man, (insert name here) is an idiot with an IQ of a half a box of doorknobs!"
Stupid is as stupid does, and all these celebrities you're saying are dumb are without question successful at what they've attempted to do, IQ number aside. None appear to have been the product of dumb luck or mommy and daddy money from what I can tell.
Seriously slashdot, the basement dwelling anonymous trolls are getting to be too much of a distraction, as are the morons with mod points who thought "They're dumb!" is insightful.
The rest of the world seems to have benefitted from some of the upstarts that came from silicon valley and elsewhere in the US that arguably existed only because of the more level playing field. That can likely work in a bad way too now. Giant media conglomerates, facebook, google face no real threats in their home which is the biggest market in the world, I have to believe they'll reach their tentacles everywhere else and entrench themselves there too.
So no, I think allowing an infection in the US could cause a worldwide problem.
Twitter banned him for it. You're suggesting they got rid of a popular user who was bringing them extra eyeballs, causing a backlash among angry white dudes, because they're biased liberal?
If they released any proof, Milo, Breitbart, and conservative attack dogs woudl sue them for libel and slander, AND people like you aren't going to be convinced anyway.
Prove to me Milo was wrongfully accused by Twitter.
1. Political sides need to apologize for the actions of a few? Cool, when did the NRA apologize for Columbine, the Colorado Springs planned parenthood shooting, Roof shooting the black church... is there like a twitter feed where they're just constantly apologizing for each new mass shooting? And where's the right wing apology for Richard Spencer's white supremacy? If there is none, fuck off.
2. To borrow a page from the alt-right/gamergate's playbook when confronting their harassing, prove it. I don't see any evidence. Lying for attention.
Your source doesn't back up what you are implying. At all. It proves the opposite if anything.
Reddit banned gawker for doxing violentacrez. Violentacrez wasn't known for being political, he was known for moderating and posting things like scandalous pictures of underage girls. If he had a political bent, I don't know, but I do know that politics had nothing to do with his doxing or reddit banning gawker.
Gawker, the site that was actually banned, had (has?) what could be described as a liberal bias. I'd say they were fairly center, just willing to call bullshit from the right bullshit, but I'm sure many slashdotters will shriek about how politically incorrect that is.
Whatever your stance on gawker, they were nearly the opposite of alt-right. Why the fuck would people who don't think using the N-word or calling women bitches (I guess you are calling them social justice warriors) ban Gawker?
Twitter did ban Milo Yosomethingorotherpolis after he encouraged a mob to attack Leslie Jones. There's still plenty of eggs screaming at every woman on the platform that they'll rape and kill her. It's hardly the dreaded safe space that all conservatives are convinced universities are becoming. Women seem to be leaving twitter due to harassment, I doubt it's because they're moving to voat.
Maybe they'll plan on also putting the most regular processors on it too so it will be the fastest all around? I assume it needs some more conventional computer parts on it as well. Would kind of be a waste to hook a quantum processor-thingy up to an apple IIe.
I mean, I would just to be sure that even if the quantum computer achieves sentience and is able to go skynet, we'd be able to handle it in a reasonable timeframe by ripping out the "Oregon trail" floppy disk, but I don't know much about computing.
AI will have to augment human intelligence? Good luck with that. From where I'm sitting, the entire boomer generation is rejecting old fashioned brain augmentation in the forms of education, listening to experts on any subject, paying attention to current events, paying attention to history, or even admitting basic facts. You're not going to get the people who really need it to put a device on their brain with the promise it will make them smarter.
Bit like denying the Titanic sinking, then suggesting that DiCaprio is a hypocritical asshole for yelling "we need to get to the boats" rather than grabbing a bucket and shoveling water.
We're well past the point where concerned individuals can stop climate change just by slightly modifying their own behavior. A few fewer jet rides is going to do fuck all. We need the governments of the world to regulate it, both in terms of sticks and carrots. If Gates releases some more CO2 but is slightly more effective at getting the next administration to leave the carbon in the ground, that's much more important.
To be honest, I'm pessimistic even extreme carbon reduction and conservation measures are anything but a waste of time, I think we need to be talking iron fertilization and other geoengineering methods to get carbon back, because we're already well past where we should be.
Forbes too seems to be going full on RIAA. "A fraction of people are getting our product for free. SPEND ALL THE MONEY TRYING FRUITLESSLY TO FIGHT THESE RARE PEOPLE!"
I'm sure they have more information than I do, but I suspect they're spending more money and losing more readers doing it than they would theoretically be gaining in the first place.
I use addblock, ghostery, and noscript to protect myself from viruses
"YOU'RE KILLING THE INTERNET!"
Yeah, well the internet infected and killed one of my computers, so I'm going to be wearing an internet condom from now on. Besides, you can't tell me no one is viewing ads anymore when my aunt still is using windows XP.
"What websites were you LOOKING at that killed your comptuer?"
Oh the usual ones, porn, porn, yahoo, and more porn.
From what I can tell, the only thing special about the current thing is they seem to be the first to use the "bioprint" buzzword in connection with skin. That's likely more due to earlier researchers going for the more lucrative fields, like trying to print a liver. You can get a skin graft if you need more skin, or take it from cadavers. If you need to test your new makeup on skin, there's animals or the keratinocyte cultures I linked to earlier. Livers on the other hand are harder to come by so printing those would be more lucrative.
I'm sure there's still a lot of money to be had in printing skin, just as there's evidently a lot of money in yet another picture sharing social media service, but this skin printing thing is not a technological breakthrough, it's a biology form of Instagram.
Putting the government in the position of deciding what thought is valuable to society and what is not? Yeah, that sounds like a GREEEEAAATTT idea.
Sarcasm aside, I think you'll find that no matter what your political warp is, you'll find reason to disagree with which studies cost a lot and which ones don't. If you're not a fossil fuel executive, elected republican, or mindless fox-news glutton, you should be upset with marine biology, ecology, geology, and climatology courses being effectively censored due to price, which they undoubtedly will. If you're right wing at all, you'll likely object to ecofeminism courses being taught under other course names, which they will. And history and politics will be targeted by the assholes on both sides (though I think would-be tyrants have all realized by now it's the GOP that is the fertile ground and the party that doesn't ask questions).
It's a testament to how far downhill slashdot has gone that your post was modded insightful.
The conservative Harper government sent government censors to monitor what scientists said at conferences. I would definitely expect the much-more-extremist conservative government we have here now to go further. And Trump knows the power of twitter and social media. The roadblock to taking action on climate change isn't a lack of peer-reviewed journals or conferences. The issue is getting the public to realize they're definitely in danger. Trump is likely looking into keeping that from happening.
Given Trump's buisiness acumen, no, I don't believe we CAN work out a deal now with better terms. Given his choices in cabinet positions, I can't see his negotiators being effective at anything other than giving Trump money and saying whatever nonsense he tells them to say. Given his statements on free trade, I don't see free trade being an issue. Given his insistence that America comes first in all things, and failure to identify the real causes of job losses among the flyover states, I don't see his priorities being at all aligned with what America should want. Given the fact that he tore up the hard work of the diplomats on both sides, I can't imagine any countries being interested in wasting much time negotiating with him.
Finally, absolutely nothing the man has said makes me think that any of the issues that concern intelligent people about the TPP will be addressed.
So, you're right, I guess we can feasibly work out another better trade deal, it's possible he'll grow an inoperable brain tumor that will suddenly turn him into a rational human being, but realistically, no, Obama's TPP was better than anything we're going to get in the next four years.
By the time a sane president is elected, I expect it will be too late to get control over the Pacific. China doesn't suffer from uninformed white trash idiots weighing in on foreign policy with countries they can't locate on a labeled globe, so they aren't going to suffer a similar setback. They will set up deals that will cement China as the major power of the area for the rest of our lives. Which, given the idiocy of voters here, might be a good thing.
False dichotomy. There's plenty of ground between "Yay TPP" and "Boo TPP." The secrecy was bad, the ability to ignore local environmental laws and copyright issues were also terrible. But the basic idea of free trade with Asia on our terms was a good one even if a lot of the specifics were awful. Cheeto tearing it up completely and letting China dominate the Asian market is an idiotic deal for the US long term.
Seems to me like that's only true for a very small number of issues and to a very limited degree. If I dislike climate change, I can't just move to california and it's all okay.
And it seems like states rights only work for silly republican ideas. Like "Hey, no sales taxes" or "We don't like the gays." California, Illinois, DC, or New York decide to limit guns and screams of "Tyrrany!" and legal challenges abound.
Great, I wasn't suggesting democrats are now and have always been saints. I was making a joke about the state of the republican party today and now. I know people think the clintons are an omnipotent evil force, but you're not suggesting Bill will somehow override the state legislatures here, are you?
I'm constantly astonished at the lengths people will go to to pretend that both sides are always equally bad in every example.
"ALL" of it is a bit of pointless oversimplification. I don't see many democrats attempting to gut the EPA. I don't see democrats leading the charge to irresponsibly cut taxes to the wealthy, or continuing to argue for reganomics.
There are times when any rational, honest person can conclude there's a right side and a wrong side. You're right that the DMCA is bipartisan shit, but it's not ALWAYS both sides, and there are times when one side is a bad actor.
Thankfully, voters are stepping up to protect American jobs
Can't help but feel like my anus is being forcibly greased up whenever "protect american jobs" is being waved around.
"Right to X" in the title of a new law is also a red flag.
I mean, I'm aware the DMCA is awful. They should just do something about that. Maybe say, we're going to repeal and replace it? Introduce the All-new Copyright Act, or ACA for short?
It's not just money, it's also Hawaii. There's a stereotype of the flyover states as being full of people who want to kill you for even thinking about stepping foot on their property, but it's far more true in Hawaii. People like Zuck move to paradise on earth, then act surprised and frustrated that other people like the area as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you mention IQ. Lady Gaga was in the same program at johns hopkins that the founder of google and facebook were, the one that took the top 1% smartest kids. I mean I'm sure YOU have an IQ that is even higher than that, and you have an online test that proves it. Alternatively, I'm sure that since posting that you've had the sudden insight that IQ doesn't measure anything real anyway.
Name a guy or woman you think is smart from the tech sector. Make them talk about entertainment or something they don't have a background in. "Man, (insert name here) is an idiot with an IQ of a half a box of doorknobs!"
Stupid is as stupid does, and all these celebrities you're saying are dumb are without question successful at what they've attempted to do, IQ number aside. None appear to have been the product of dumb luck or mommy and daddy money from what I can tell.
Seriously slashdot, the basement dwelling anonymous trolls are getting to be too much of a distraction, as are the morons with mod points who thought "They're dumb!" is insightful.
The rest of the world seems to have benefitted from some of the upstarts that came from silicon valley and elsewhere in the US that arguably existed only because of the more level playing field. That can likely work in a bad way too now. Giant media conglomerates, facebook, google face no real threats in their home which is the biggest market in the world, I have to believe they'll reach their tentacles everywhere else and entrench themselves there too.
So no, I think allowing an infection in the US could cause a worldwide problem.
But it has been closer to level before now. Something doesn't need to have been perfect to get worse.
Twitter banned him for it. You're suggesting they got rid of a popular user who was bringing them extra eyeballs, causing a backlash among angry white dudes, because they're biased liberal?
If they released any proof, Milo, Breitbart, and conservative attack dogs woudl sue them for libel and slander, AND people like you aren't going to be convinced anyway.
Prove to me Milo was wrongfully accused by Twitter.
1. Political sides need to apologize for the actions of a few? Cool, when did the NRA apologize for Columbine, the Colorado Springs planned parenthood shooting, Roof shooting the black church... is there like a twitter feed where they're just constantly apologizing for each new mass shooting? And where's the right wing apology for Richard Spencer's white supremacy? If there is none, fuck off.
2. To borrow a page from the alt-right/gamergate's playbook when confronting their harassing, prove it. I don't see any evidence. Lying for attention.
Your source doesn't back up what you are implying. At all. It proves the opposite if anything.
Reddit banned gawker for doxing violentacrez. Violentacrez wasn't known for being political, he was known for moderating and posting things like scandalous pictures of underage girls. If he had a political bent, I don't know, but I do know that politics had nothing to do with his doxing or reddit banning gawker.
Gawker, the site that was actually banned, had (has?) what could be described as a liberal bias. I'd say they were fairly center, just willing to call bullshit from the right bullshit, but I'm sure many slashdotters will shriek about how politically incorrect that is.
Whatever your stance on gawker, they were nearly the opposite of alt-right. Why the fuck would people who don't think using the N-word or calling women bitches (I guess you are calling them social justice warriors) ban Gawker?
Twitter did ban Milo Yosomethingorotherpolis after he encouraged a mob to attack Leslie Jones. There's still plenty of eggs screaming at every woman on the platform that they'll rape and kill her. It's hardly the dreaded safe space that all conservatives are convinced universities are becoming. Women seem to be leaving twitter due to harassment, I doubt it's because they're moving to voat.
Maybe they'll plan on also putting the most regular processors on it too so it will be the fastest all around? I assume it needs some more conventional computer parts on it as well. Would kind of be a waste to hook a quantum processor-thingy up to an apple IIe.
I mean, I would just to be sure that even if the quantum computer achieves sentience and is able to go skynet, we'd be able to handle it in a reasonable timeframe by ripping out the "Oregon trail" floppy disk, but I don't know much about computing.
In keeping with my biologist-level of understanding of quantum theory, I think I can't be sure if I do or if I don't until I actually taste it.
AI will have to augment human intelligence? Good luck with that. From where I'm sitting, the entire boomer generation is rejecting old fashioned brain augmentation in the forms of education, listening to experts on any subject, paying attention to current events, paying attention to history, or even admitting basic facts. You're not going to get the people who really need it to put a device on their brain with the promise it will make them smarter.
Bit like denying the Titanic sinking, then suggesting that DiCaprio is a hypocritical asshole for yelling "we need to get to the boats" rather than grabbing a bucket and shoveling water.
We're well past the point where concerned individuals can stop climate change just by slightly modifying their own behavior. A few fewer jet rides is going to do fuck all. We need the governments of the world to regulate it, both in terms of sticks and carrots. If Gates releases some more CO2 but is slightly more effective at getting the next administration to leave the carbon in the ground, that's much more important.
To be honest, I'm pessimistic even extreme carbon reduction and conservation measures are anything but a waste of time, I think we need to be talking iron fertilization and other geoengineering methods to get carbon back, because we're already well past where we should be.
Worth keeping in mind it costs on average 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to the market, and most drug candidates fail. If this were a non-essential industry, it would have folded a long long time ago. We can't allow it to fail to exist, thus we have to allow some stuff.
Hey now! They have some very insightful articles on... pokemon go...
Forbes too seems to be going full on RIAA. "A fraction of people are getting our product for free. SPEND ALL THE MONEY TRYING FRUITLESSLY TO FIGHT THESE RARE PEOPLE!"
I'm sure they have more information than I do, but I suspect they're spending more money and losing more readers doing it than they would theoretically be gaining in the first place.
I use addblock, ghostery, and noscript to protect myself from viruses
"YOU'RE KILLING THE INTERNET!"
Yeah, well the internet infected and killed one of my computers, so I'm going to be wearing an internet condom from now on. Besides, you can't tell me no one is viewing ads anymore when my aunt still is using windows XP.
"What websites were you LOOKING at that killed your comptuer?"
Oh the usual ones, porn, porn, yahoo, and more porn.
"You pervert! Use google instead!"
They print a whole Milla Jovovoovovich (aside from a hand) in 5th element.
More importantly, it's been done before in real life. There's a "skin gun" that can basically "bioprint" skin right on a patient . And biologists have been growing skin in vitro for a while now.
From what I can tell, the only thing special about the current thing is they seem to be the first to use the "bioprint" buzzword in connection with skin. That's likely more due to earlier researchers going for the more lucrative fields, like trying to print a liver. You can get a skin graft if you need more skin, or take it from cadavers. If you need to test your new makeup on skin, there's animals or the keratinocyte cultures I linked to earlier. Livers on the other hand are harder to come by so printing those would be more lucrative.
I'm sure there's still a lot of money to be had in printing skin, just as there's evidently a lot of money in yet another picture sharing social media service, but this skin printing thing is not a technological breakthrough, it's a biology form of Instagram.
Putting the government in the position of deciding what thought is valuable to society and what is not? Yeah, that sounds like a GREEEEAAATTT idea.
Sarcasm aside, I think you'll find that no matter what your political warp is, you'll find reason to disagree with which studies cost a lot and which ones don't. If you're not a fossil fuel executive, elected republican, or mindless fox-news glutton, you should be upset with marine biology, ecology, geology, and climatology courses being effectively censored due to price, which they undoubtedly will. If you're right wing at all, you'll likely object to ecofeminism courses being taught under other course names, which they will. And history and politics will be targeted by the assholes on both sides (though I think would-be tyrants have all realized by now it's the GOP that is the fertile ground and the party that doesn't ask questions). It's a testament to how far downhill slashdot has gone that your post was modded insightful.
The conservative Harper government sent government censors to monitor what scientists said at conferences. I would definitely expect the much-more-extremist conservative government we have here now to go further. And Trump knows the power of twitter and social media. The roadblock to taking action on climate change isn't a lack of peer-reviewed journals or conferences. The issue is getting the public to realize they're definitely in danger. Trump is likely looking into keeping that from happening.
Given Trump's buisiness acumen, no, I don't believe we CAN work out a deal now with better terms. Given his choices in cabinet positions, I can't see his negotiators being effective at anything other than giving Trump money and saying whatever nonsense he tells them to say. Given his statements on free trade, I don't see free trade being an issue. Given his insistence that America comes first in all things, and failure to identify the real causes of job losses among the flyover states, I don't see his priorities being at all aligned with what America should want. Given the fact that he tore up the hard work of the diplomats on both sides, I can't imagine any countries being interested in wasting much time negotiating with him.
Finally, absolutely nothing the man has said makes me think that any of the issues that concern intelligent people about the TPP will be addressed.
So, you're right, I guess we can feasibly work out another better trade deal, it's possible he'll grow an inoperable brain tumor that will suddenly turn him into a rational human being, but realistically, no, Obama's TPP was better than anything we're going to get in the next four years.
By the time a sane president is elected, I expect it will be too late to get control over the Pacific. China doesn't suffer from uninformed white trash idiots weighing in on foreign policy with countries they can't locate on a labeled globe, so they aren't going to suffer a similar setback. They will set up deals that will cement China as the major power of the area for the rest of our lives. Which, given the idiocy of voters here, might be a good thing.
False dichotomy. There's plenty of ground between "Yay TPP" and "Boo TPP." The secrecy was bad, the ability to ignore local environmental laws and copyright issues were also terrible. But the basic idea of free trade with Asia on our terms was a good one even if a lot of the specifics were awful. Cheeto tearing it up completely and letting China dominate the Asian market is an idiotic deal for the US long term.
Seems to me like that's only true for a very small number of issues and to a very limited degree. If I dislike climate change, I can't just move to california and it's all okay.
And it seems like states rights only work for silly republican ideas. Like "Hey, no sales taxes" or "We don't like the gays." California, Illinois, DC, or New York decide to limit guns and screams of "Tyrrany!" and legal challenges abound.
Great, I wasn't suggesting democrats are now and have always been saints. I was making a joke about the state of the republican party today and now. I know people think the clintons are an omnipotent evil force, but you're not suggesting Bill will somehow override the state legislatures here, are you?
I'm constantly astonished at the lengths people will go to to pretend that both sides are always equally bad in every example.
"ALL" of it is a bit of pointless oversimplification. I don't see many democrats attempting to gut the EPA. I don't see democrats leading the charge to irresponsibly cut taxes to the wealthy, or continuing to argue for reganomics.
There are times when any rational, honest person can conclude there's a right side and a wrong side. You're right that the DMCA is bipartisan shit, but it's not ALWAYS both sides, and there are times when one side is a bad actor.
Appears to be states using their rights to do something that makes sense, nothing at the federal level.
So I can only assume the GOP is going to smack them down on it somehow.
Thankfully, voters are stepping up to protect American jobs
Can't help but feel like my anus is being forcibly greased up whenever "protect american jobs" is being waved around.
"Right to X" in the title of a new law is also a red flag.
I mean, I'm aware the DMCA is awful. They should just do something about that. Maybe say, we're going to repeal and replace it? Introduce the All-new Copyright Act, or ACA for short?
It's not just money, it's also Hawaii. There's a stereotype of the flyover states as being full of people who want to kill you for even thinking about stepping foot on their property, but it's far more true in Hawaii. People like Zuck move to paradise on earth, then act surprised and frustrated that other people like the area as well.