How about we steer away from anecdotal evidence and more towards quantitative data. I'm too ignorant to take sides in this argument, but I do know poor arguments when I see them.
Cyanobacteria scientists were warning about it for millions of generations, but cyanobacteria politicians convinced the cyanobacteria voters it was all a nefarious ploy to give the cyanogovernment the power to regulate their metabolism, and was just a theory to boot.
Also helps explains why some people labeled hipsters are so concerned about music that other people haven't heard before, or hearing it on vinyl. If you pride yourself on your musical tastes, and any Taylor Swift fan like me can come along and download the music you like, that might be damaging to your sense of self. Two solutions are to insist that scarce physical media makes a huge difference, or to only like music that I'm unlikely to have heard of.
Isn't being a legal troll a full time job? It's quite lucrative if you have a team of lawyers to back it up, but "Hey, I'll take you to court as soon as I find a lawyer who accepts my credit card" will probably be laughed off more than this letter (IANAL though.)
To be fair, arcademan's post is quite insightful if you only ignore the pesky forward direction of time. If you reverse it, he makes a really spot on statement. ABOUT THE FUTURE NO LESS.
I've heard through slashdot that security is always pyramid shaped. There's no such thing as 100% secure, but you can eliminate most threats.
GP mocks a belief that tor is magical. I suspect no one thought that it was, I'm guessing the people who set up utopia thought they'd be lower on the priority list of criminals. Their mistake was likely not believing too much in tor, their mistake was assuming that governments would be more interested in going after rapists and murderers than going after a few nerds trying to buy or sell pot. Nerds who will be made out to be dangerous online drug cartels, justifying huge expenditures on "cybersecurity," online divisions of law enforcement, and increasing the governments control over the internet.
Hmm... perhaps their mistake was even dumber than simply believing tor is magic.
Seriously, who's going to buy a Nokia Android phone when you know they've been bought by Microsoft and won't care one bit about supporting it?
Possible customers include anyone who doesn't follow mobile phone news very closely. Which is most people. Tech business news is not exactly gobbled up by the public. Most slashdotters won't buy, but mobile nerds aren't common. AND I might buy one if the hardware's nice enough and I can root it. What do I care about support for it if I can just install cyanogenmod?
which core republican beliefs (not christian) are anti-science?
That's a straw man argument. I said the republican party was anti-science, no the core republican beliefs.
They crucify global warming because you cannot have a nuanced debate. i.e. yes, let's all accept AGW, now what the hell does carbon limitations do to help our countrymen? We can shift all these well paying jobs to other countries (ME, East Asia) where the same or more pollution will occur, and on top of that we will have an unemployment problem, or we can let climate change happen because by and large it looks like it will more seriously effect other countries, most of which aren't our trading partners.
That's a false dichotomy. Plus, that's no reason to deny climate change is occurring: you want to argue for letting climate change happen because it's going to affect other people, then make that argument, don't claim it's not going to happen. Conservatives who argue along those lines know that "Fuck those other people" is not a compelling argument. Lying, basically.
Her credit card information, e-mail, address, and various other bits are probably on glass. If you walked by her, your face is on glass, that's it. Apples and oranges. Very tiny oranges. I know it's fun to hate on google and glass, but lets keep criticisms fair and not get distracted from bigger privacy concerns such as the NSA or law enforcement cams everywhere.
The environment inside a cell is nothing like a lake or ocean that you can go merrily boating through. The cell is packed with molecules jostling each other around and it's random thermal motion that rules that world. Overcoming that with a motor and expecting to maneuver around to specific places just does not seem like it is going to be effective
Furthermore, I'd argue that the inside of a cell IS in an important way like a lake or ocean: at such small scales, momentum is negligible, same as it is in a cellular environment.
No it doesn't. First off, they don't vote as often as they should. Second, the tea party isn't a particularly young group, so at least half of the dynamic in Washington cannot be laid at the feet of young astrologists. Third, just my opinion, but while astrology isn't science, the republican party is even further from science. The philosophy there seems to be change the world to fit political ideology, not vice versa. Taxes must be cut because we took a pledge saying taxes must be cut. We're going to crucify scientists saying climate change is happening because we know it isn't because our donors told us it isn't.
In conclusion, jokes need to have at least a kernel of truth to them in order to be funny.
No, that's both sides. Actually, that's all political sides in this country. Actually, that's all political sides in any country ever. Actually, that's just human nature.
Anyway, sure, they have right to free speech, but they're not convincing the majority of politicians that climate change isn't happening through speech. I'd call it bribery, which they do not have a right to do.
You're right, we should be more respectful to people who disagree with pretty much every scientific study on the matter yet somehow have the ear of most people in government. There's nothing shameful going on there.
(/s) Calling them names is a damn sight kinder than what they deserve.
They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing,
Note to self: stop browsing slashdot...
and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.
Presumably a researcher would know if and when this was likely. And in my experience, what happens most of the time when two people are working on similar things is that the researchers can collude to publish simultaneously so neither one is upstaged. I think it's more likely that blabbing about what you're doing to a competitor will help AVOID being scooped than causing it. I've found this to be the case in my short career. My thesis adviser said in her 25 years she never found much use in keeping her research secret before publishing. Undoubtedly varies between fields.
That happens to some degree every election: the primary they swing in the direction of their party, then in the general they have to swing back to the middle. It was only unusual last time because politics have gone so far to the right.
I'd argue that they may have lost the last battle, but they've essentially won the war. Obama's signature accomplishment was basically a republican plan.
There's something to be said though for being self-taught something to inspire a love of a subject. The fact that all those tech companies started up and are doing well when computer science education at the HS level sucks so bad says it's working to some degree. Maybe we shouldn't fix what's not completely broken, since that often ends up even worse.
My computer classes in high school in the 90s were a 60 year old woman insulting us while we typed the same paragraph over and over in something one step up from an apple IIe. Had that old troll been instructing us on linux, I might have quit computers. As it was, I only stuck with computers through high school because 1. I had no friends and 2. I heard there was porn on the internet.
I suspect that hospitals would be loathe to put in artificial parts which someone else could remotely service or diagnose, even without any chance of what you suggest.
Doesn't mean it's impossible of course, just that it seems right at this moment like a remote concern.
Slashdot Mirror
How about we steer away from anecdotal evidence and more towards quantitative data. I'm too ignorant to take sides in this argument, but I do know poor arguments when I see them.
Cyanobacteria scientists were warning about it for millions of generations, but cyanobacteria politicians convinced the cyanobacteria voters it was all a nefarious ploy to give the cyanogovernment the power to regulate their metabolism, and was just a theory to boot.
Also helps explains why some people labeled hipsters are so concerned about music that other people haven't heard before, or hearing it on vinyl. If you pride yourself on your musical tastes, and any Taylor Swift fan like me can come along and download the music you like, that might be damaging to your sense of self. Two solutions are to insist that scarce physical media makes a huge difference, or to only like music that I'm unlikely to have heard of.
That choice is made by not signing up with facebook. Your personal information is pretty much their entire business.
BDSM is something that's not taboo anymore? Man, way to ruin it, people.
I shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils!
I admit I didn't know how much trouble I was asking for the first time I flashed it, but it works great for me now.
Isn't being a legal troll a full time job? It's quite lucrative if you have a team of lawyers to back it up, but "Hey, I'll take you to court as soon as I find a lawyer who accepts my credit card" will probably be laughed off more than this letter (IANAL though.)
To be fair, arcademan's post is quite insightful if you only ignore the pesky forward direction of time. If you reverse it, he makes a really spot on statement. ABOUT THE FUTURE NO LESS.
I've heard through slashdot that security is always pyramid shaped. There's no such thing as 100% secure, but you can eliminate most threats.
GP mocks a belief that tor is magical. I suspect no one thought that it was, I'm guessing the people who set up utopia thought they'd be lower on the priority list of criminals. Their mistake was likely not believing too much in tor, their mistake was assuming that governments would be more interested in going after rapists and murderers than going after a few nerds trying to buy or sell pot. Nerds who will be made out to be dangerous online drug cartels, justifying huge expenditures on "cybersecurity," online divisions of law enforcement, and increasing the governments control over the internet.
Hmm... perhaps their mistake was even dumber than simply believing tor is magic.
Seriously, who's going to buy a Nokia Android phone when you know they've been bought by Microsoft and won't care one bit about supporting it?
Possible customers include anyone who doesn't follow mobile phone news very closely. Which is most people. Tech business news is not exactly gobbled up by the public. Most slashdotters won't buy, but mobile nerds aren't common. AND I might buy one if the hardware's nice enough and I can root it. What do I care about support for it if I can just install cyanogenmod?
True that: he's at a competitive disadvantage.
which core republican beliefs (not christian) are anti-science?
That's a straw man argument. I said the republican party was anti-science, no the core republican beliefs.
They crucify global warming because you cannot have a nuanced debate. i.e. yes, let's all accept AGW, now what the hell does carbon limitations do to help our countrymen? We can shift all these well paying jobs to other countries (ME, East Asia) where the same or more pollution will occur, and on top of that we will have an unemployment problem, or we can let climate change happen because by and large it looks like it will more seriously effect other countries, most of which aren't our trading partners.
That's a false dichotomy. Plus, that's no reason to deny climate change is occurring: you want to argue for letting climate change happen because it's going to affect other people, then make that argument, don't claim it's not going to happen. Conservatives who argue along those lines know that "Fuck those other people" is not a compelling argument. Lying, basically.
Her credit card information, e-mail, address, and various other bits are probably on glass. If you walked by her, your face is on glass, that's it. Apples and oranges. Very tiny oranges. I know it's fun to hate on google and glass, but lets keep criticisms fair and not get distracted from bigger privacy concerns such as the NSA or law enforcement cams everywhere.
The environment inside a cell is nothing like a lake or ocean that you can go merrily boating through. The cell is packed with molecules jostling each other around and it's random thermal motion that rules that world. Overcoming that with a motor and expecting to maneuver around to specific places just does not seem like it is going to be effective
It has been proposed that at least some motor proteins use that brownian motion as the way to move around in a cellular environment. Using a force already necessarily present to move stuff is more efficient than generating a magnetic field, that's likely the reason it's preferred to magnetic movement or electric.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the inside of a cell IS in an important way like a lake or ocean: at such small scales, momentum is negligible, same as it is in a cellular environment.
No it doesn't. First off, they don't vote as often as they should. Second, the tea party isn't a particularly young group, so at least half of the dynamic in Washington cannot be laid at the feet of young astrologists. Third, just my opinion, but while astrology isn't science, the republican party is even further from science. The philosophy there seems to be change the world to fit political ideology, not vice versa. Taxes must be cut because we took a pledge saying taxes must be cut. We're going to crucify scientists saying climate change is happening because we know it isn't because our donors told us it isn't.
In conclusion, jokes need to have at least a kernel of truth to them in order to be funny.
No, that's both sides. Actually, that's all political sides in this country. Actually, that's all political sides in any country ever. Actually, that's just human nature.
Anyway, sure, they have right to free speech, but they're not convincing the majority of politicians that climate change isn't happening through speech. I'd call it bribery, which they do not have a right to do.
Oh, good, let's get off on THIS tangent, that will be productive.
You're right, we should be more respectful to people who disagree with pretty much every scientific study on the matter yet somehow have the ear of most people in government. There's nothing shameful going on there.
(/s) Calling them names is a damn sight kinder than what they deserve.
They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing,
Note to self: stop browsing slashdot...
and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.
Presumably a researcher would know if and when this was likely. And in my experience, what happens most of the time when two people are working on similar things is that the researchers can collude to publish simultaneously so neither one is upstaged. I think it's more likely that blabbing about what you're doing to a competitor will help AVOID being scooped than causing it. I've found this to be the case in my short career. My thesis adviser said in her 25 years she never found much use in keeping her research secret before publishing. Undoubtedly varies between fields.
That happens to some degree every election: the primary they swing in the direction of their party, then in the general they have to swing back to the middle. It was only unusual last time because politics have gone so far to the right.
I'd argue that they may have lost the last battle, but they've essentially won the war. Obama's signature accomplishment was basically a republican plan.
Probably thinking "Hey, cerebellum, that's part of the thinkin' meats, right? Lets make it sound like that!"
There's something to be said though for being self-taught something to inspire a love of a subject. The fact that all those tech companies started up and are doing well when computer science education at the HS level sucks so bad says it's working to some degree. Maybe we shouldn't fix what's not completely broken, since that often ends up even worse.
My computer classes in high school in the 90s were a 60 year old woman insulting us while we typed the same paragraph over and over in something one step up from an apple IIe. Had that old troll been instructing us on linux, I might have quit computers. As it was, I only stuck with computers through high school because 1. I had no friends and 2. I heard there was porn on the internet.
I suspect that hospitals would be loathe to put in artificial parts which someone else could remotely service or diagnose, even without any chance of what you suggest.
Doesn't mean it's impossible of course, just that it seems right at this moment like a remote concern.
Care to explain how that is at all similar to what I was suggesting?