People who refuse to do anything about a greater evil, lest they accept a smaller evil, piss me off.
I agree entirely, you just haven't identified the greater and lesser evils correctly. The greater evil in this case is the two party (one really) political system. The lesser evil in this case is the marginal difference between D and R.
Those people who voted for Nader in 2000, because âoevoting for the smaller evil is still evilâ have the blood of the Iraq war on their hands!
If we had a functioning electoral system, this wouldn't be a problem at all. That is the greater evil we must try to destroy. Don't just worry about the Iraq war, worry about all the future Iraq wars that will happen if we don't fix the system.
Once you find the things you're good at, those are the reasons to believe in yourself.
The problem is when the things you're good at aren't valued by anyone. I can read a lab protocol, understand why it works, and implement it successfully. I can do this even better than my post-doctorate collegues.
But this isn't a worthwhile skill in this world. I would have been better off if I learned how to be a convincing liar. How is this supposed to be not-depressing?
experiments which showed that 'normal' people have a tendency to overestimate the degree to which they can control the world around them. People who have learned to cope with depression, on the other hand, show a greater tendency to realistically assess their circumstance and the degree to which they are in control
In other words, the depressed among us are the realists. The rest of you happy people are the crazy ones.
What if depression is a normal response to a broken society and we're just trying to force people to accept a broken world rather than explore the possible remedies to an unhealthy existence?
One would assume that psychiatry would have an answer for that, but it seems to fluster every shrink I ask.
What is one supposed to base life decisions on then? In this world we get to choose between making decisions based on limited evidence, and making decisions based on no evidence. I'll suggest that of the choices, limited evidence leads to better outcomes than no evidence, but I have limited evidence to back that up.
Can a scientist type person please clarify this for the less-sciency of us?
uM is micromolar, not micrometer. Micrometer is um. Molarity is a a unit of concentration where 1M is one mole of a substance per liter. A mole is the number of atoms of a substance it takes for the actual weight to match the molecular weight. e.g. The molecular weight of an oxygen molecule (O2) is twice the molecular weight of oxygen(2x16=32). So one mole of O2 weighs 32g.
The actual numerical value of the mole is avogadro's number(6.02x10^23), but it's not really necessary to work with the actual number when you're doing concentration calculations like this.
Gross inequities arise out of government regulation to begin with
No, gross inequities arise out of basic math. Economic transactions form a scale free network, with the wealthy as hubs. The more connections on that network, the more opportunities to gain wealth. That's all there is to it, wealth concentrates by nature.
Money makes money faster than labor. That's just how economics works. Iterate that a few times and you get inequalitie. Without a means for redistributing that wealth (socialism), we are bound for instability.
You can assert that government is the cause of all inequality if you want, but I've just outlined a mechanism where inequality generates itself without any government influence at all. Where exactly am I wrong?
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions.
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if Sweden would guarantee that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Assange requested this assurance and it was refused. Why would they refuse unless they intend to send him to the US? Why would Assange go to Sweden when the indications are that they intend to send him to the US?
Amarok's main advantage is its SQL backed library. You can load hundreds of thousands of tracks in it and it can search through them without breaking a sweat. Complementing this is great metadata support. So if I want to listen to all the classic rock albums I have from 1979, that's easy to do.
People are very vocal about horror stories, but success stories don't get as much attention.
Both are anecdotes, and not data. Therefore neither deserves attention.
Please don't condemn yourself to another 15 years of depression because of a pop science book.
Unfortunately, it's not pop-sci, but real peer reviewed science that shows that SSRIs are no better than placebo for patients with mild to severe depression, and barely significant effects on severe patients.
SSRIs are garbage pushed on desperate people by a corrupt pharmaceutical industry with no regard for anything but profits. They're addictive, they increase the chances of suicide, and even when they work they just make you complacent.
When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.
Obama delivered big on the change, not so much on the hope.
still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.
We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein.
You clearly don't understand anarcho-capitalism. There would be only one law: Keep your hands off other people and their property without their permission.
When the entire city, including the roadways, police, education system is owned by a private corporation, how does one live a lawful life without selling oneself to the corporation?
Knowing all that, how on earth do you get the idea that following these ideas can end up with the "rich" stuffing poor people into meat grinders for their amusement?
The gilded age. There but for government regulations won by a strong labor movement go we.
The only way anyone could get rich is by serving wants of the masses with lower priced higher quality goods and services than the competition.
Yes, and because of economies of scale the rich can provide higher quality goods and services than the poor can. The consequence of this is wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Money makes money faster than labor does. Without specific provisions(like say, government regulation) to stop this, inequality will rule until the poor rise up and slaughter everyone. Is that what you want?
Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him
So this bothers you, but his treatment of Thomas Drake doesn't? Or the fact that he considers legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California to be a higher priority target than the investment bankers who crashed the economy in 2008? Or his continued use of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? Or that he signed the blatantly unconstitutional 2012 NDAA? Or his unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad?
The chief of the ACLU is "disgusted" with Obama. You should be too.
This is a trumped up accusation of rape, disclaimed by the victims, dropped by the proscutor, and only reopened under political pressure from the US. He can't expect a fair trial any more than he could expect a fair indictment.
Slashdot Mirror
This has nothing to do with negative results. This is to weed out false positives.
The Nigerian prince scam worked only on people who were willing to help somebody commit money laundering.
I think the Nigerian prince scam works only on people who are too stupid to understand what money laundering is.
So make a browser plugin that sends flash apps to the system flash interpreter. This should be doable without any action from Adobe. Problem solved.
Firefox 10 runs on my P200MMX under SliTaz Linux. It runs slowly, but it definitely runs.
People who refuse to do anything about a greater evil, lest they accept a smaller evil, piss me off.
I agree entirely, you just haven't identified the greater and lesser evils correctly. The greater evil in this case is the two party (one really) political system. The lesser evil in this case is the marginal difference between D and R.
Those people who voted for Nader in 2000, because âoevoting for the smaller evil is still evilâ have the blood of the Iraq war on their hands!
If we had a functioning electoral system, this wouldn't be a problem at all. That is the greater evil we must try to destroy. Don't just worry about the Iraq war, worry about all the future Iraq wars that will happen if we don't fix the system.
Once you find the things you're good at, those are the reasons to believe in yourself.
The problem is when the things you're good at aren't valued by anyone. I can read a lab protocol, understand why it works, and implement it successfully. I can do this even better than my post-doctorate collegues.
But this isn't a worthwhile skill in this world. I would have been better off if I learned how to be a convincing liar. How is this supposed to be not-depressing?
experiments which showed that 'normal' people have a tendency to overestimate the degree to which they can control the world around them. People who have learned to cope with depression, on the other hand, show a greater tendency to realistically assess their circumstance and the degree to which they are in control
In other words, the depressed among us are the realists. The rest of you happy people are the crazy ones.
What if depression is a normal response to a broken society and we're just trying to force people to accept a broken world rather than explore the possible remedies to an unhealthy existence?
One would assume that psychiatry would have an answer for that, but it seems to fluster every shrink I ask.
What is one supposed to base life decisions on then? In this world we get to choose between making decisions based on limited evidence, and making decisions based on no evidence. I'll suggest that of the choices, limited evidence leads to better outcomes than no evidence, but I have limited evidence to back that up.
Can a scientist type person please clarify this for the less-sciency of us?
uM is micromolar, not micrometer. Micrometer is um. Molarity is a a unit of concentration where 1M is one mole of a substance per liter. A mole is the number of atoms of a substance it takes for the actual weight to match the molecular weight. e.g. The molecular weight of an oxygen molecule (O2) is twice the molecular weight of oxygen(2x16=32). So one mole of O2 weighs 32g.
The actual numerical value of the mole is avogadro's number(6.02x10^23), but it's not really necessary to work with the actual number when you're doing concentration calculations like this.
Gross inequities arise out of government regulation to begin with
No, gross inequities arise out of basic math. Economic transactions form a scale free network, with the wealthy as hubs. The more connections on that network, the more opportunities to gain wealth. That's all there is to it, wealth concentrates by nature.
Money makes money faster than labor. That's just how economics works. Iterate that a few times and you get inequalitie. Without a means for redistributing that wealth (socialism), we are bound for instability.
You can assert that government is the cause of all inequality if you want, but I've just outlined a mechanism where inequality generates itself without any government influence at all. Where exactly am I wrong?
No, voting for evil is far worse than doing nothing. If you vote for either D or R you are actively assisting evil and are therefore evil yourself.
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions.
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if Sweden would guarantee that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Assange requested this assurance and it was refused. Why would they refuse unless they intend to send him to the US? Why would Assange go to Sweden when the indications are that they intend to send him to the US?
Amarok's main advantage is its SQL backed library. You can load hundreds of thousands of tracks in it and it can search through them without breaking a sweat. Complementing this is great metadata support. So if I want to listen to all the classic rock albums I have from 1979, that's easy to do.
People are very vocal about horror stories, but success stories don't get as much attention.
Both are anecdotes, and not data. Therefore neither deserves attention.
Please don't condemn yourself to another 15 years of depression because of a pop science book.
Unfortunately, it's not pop-sci, but real peer reviewed science that shows that SSRIs are no better than placebo for patients with mild to severe depression, and barely significant effects on severe patients.
SSRIs are garbage pushed on desperate people by a corrupt pharmaceutical industry with no regard for anything but profits. They're addictive, they increase the chances of suicide, and even when they work they just make you complacent.
When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.
Obama delivered big on the change, not so much on the hope.
and don't try to tell me a Republican would be more sympathetic.
Who said anything about Republicans? Vote third party or stay the fuck home.
As I admitted, this is the (FAR) lesser of two evils in my estimate
You're still voting for evil.
still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.
Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.
We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein.
The American public in general is overwhelmingly authoritarian.
You clearly don't understand anarcho-capitalism. There would be only one law: Keep your hands off other people and their property without their permission.
When the entire city, including the roadways, police, education system is owned by a private corporation, how does one live a lawful life without selling oneself to the corporation?
Knowing all that, how on earth do you get the idea that following these ideas can end up with the "rich" stuffing poor people into meat grinders for their amusement?
The gilded age. There but for government regulations won by a strong labor movement go we.
The only way anyone could get rich is by serving wants of the masses with lower priced higher quality goods and services than the competition.
Yes, and because of economies of scale the rich can provide higher quality goods and services than the poor can. The consequence of this is wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Money makes money faster than labor does. Without specific provisions(like say, government regulation) to stop this, inequality will rule until the poor rise up and slaughter everyone. Is that what you want?
Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him
So this bothers you, but his treatment of Thomas Drake doesn't? Or the fact that he considers legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California to be a higher priority target than the investment bankers who crashed the economy in 2008? Or his continued use of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? Or that he signed the blatantly unconstitutional 2012 NDAA? Or his unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad?
The chief of the ACLU is "disgusted" with Obama. You should be too.
This is a trumped up accusation of rape, disclaimed by the victims, dropped by the proscutor, and only reopened under political pressure from the US. He can't expect a fair trial any more than he could expect a fair indictment.
Good for Assange and good for Ecuador.
Murder Pockets!
So when can we expect "conspiracy to defraud" cases to be initiated against, e.g., the suits in charge of RBS leading up to the 2008 financial crisis?