Also the words "shocking statistic" why is it shocking that a woman gets abused on facebook or twitter every 30 seconds? Half the worlds population of 7.7 billion people are online. At that rate the average person commits an insult once every 122 years. Yes that is shockingly low, but I don't think that is what they meant.
The maths:
p/r = 1/30 where p is the population online, r seconds per insult per person
30 * p = r
Also from (https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/) 3.1 million children die from hunger annually, that is 1 every 10 seconds, although you also need to take into account population, somebody actually died not had an insult directed at them online which they may or may not have read.
So a not so bad thing happens, not so often is now "shocking".
so what, will a significant portion of stop going to Disney land, or stop watching there movies just because some makes a new steam-boat willy cartoon?
That's because biometrics aren't used much, if iris scans where used to log in every web site then they would be immediately compromised the moment you logged in.
Also how do you know that Canada Border Services Agency only holds the hash, did you examine the scanner code?
And that trust-less society is one that is incredibly inefficient. Just stop and think what would happen if society didn't enforce any trust.
Go to the supermarket, well the food maybe poison, you should have to test it yourself. How would you test well you couldn't ask someone they could be lying, you would have to do your own research to determine those test food safety. That would be all everybody would be doing checking that everybody else is not lying.
Install software? did you read the source and then compile the source yourself? did you check the compiler and compile that too? did you get an electron microscope and check the hardware your software is running on? what about that electron microscope you sure someone didn't mess with that?
Society runs on trust, that is one reason I believe people don't read terms and condition, they trust that they are reasonable, imagine the total time used if everybody read all the terms and conditions, and constantly checked for update for every site they visited, all the software they ran, and service they used.
It is usually better to trust and sometimes get screwed over than never trust.
What I think the grandparent said, Trump is the rebellion against academia, they are proponents of free trade, welfare system, women's rights, and immigration. People just want to be able to work support themselves and have job security.
While I think academia principles are good in moderation, they don't allow seem to debate, they just scream racist, sexist, protectionist.
Free trade good, but not to the point that all production is shipped of overseas, and only people making any money are the people that own the intellectual property.
Welfare system good, but not to the point that working people can barley make a better living than unemployed, it should be hard being on a benefit.
Women's rights good, they should be equal, but not superior, saying you look nice, to someone can loose your job, or you don't get hired over a woman just because you are male or white.
Immigration good, but don't let every body in, they need to be in real need, or prove they will benefit society.
This is not just a left thing though, the right also go way too far.
Some of these problems may just be perceived ones, but when you ignore people, or just tell them they are wrong they don't just turn around and agree with you they just get more extreme in the opposite direction because they think you are being unreasonable.
The world is not binary or even linear, there is a whole spectrum of solutions that we can be discussing without name calling or assuming the other person is somehow evil.
I don't see why a self signed certificate gets a warning, but http doesn't it is no less secure. An Icon saying it is less secure should be enough (say you may not be going to the site you expect). It is really annoying that you have to pay someone a recurring fee just to add a little security. Even worse for routers that don't have a DNS entry, you have to start managing your own certificates.
I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population.
I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.
It is not that they don't add value, of course they do. The question is are they taking a reasonable proportion of the money. Capitalism has no concept of fair, and left to its own the strong will take advantage of the weak (just like in nature) and the strong that don't will be outperformed by the strong that do. Laws like minimum wage allow society to set level of what is considered fair.
True, it saves you many hours of labor but those hours amazon did not provide, it didn't raise the sheep, it didn't spin the yarn it did wealth the yarn, it didn't ship the product. All it did is spend a few milliseconds of computer time. But it takes a disproportionate large proportion of the profit. It does this because it controls the market place, it makes sense to only have only 1 because you don't really want to shop at 10 online stores to get the cheapest. Because Amazon is so big it can unduly influence the price of both provider and suppler. Same with ride sharing apps you don't want check more than one to get a ride, one will eventually win and it will be very hard for a newcomer to enter the market and take over.
A coffee farmer gets less than 1 cent for every cup of coffee you buy, clearly a lot of middle men are taking there cut.
Even if you feed that cow on grass grown in the field it has an opportunity cost that field could be used to grow food directly for consumption. We are not talking about cost here in dollar terms but cost to the environment. These are quite different things, if I throw my trash outside it cost me nothing.
A cow has to eat and convert that energy into meat, like all processes that is has loss even if the cow just stood there from birth doing nothing but eating. But the cow also walks around and does what ever cows find interesting.
If you have a problem with streaming then you should provide a copy that can be downloaded and played offline. If you want you waste bandwidth with a streaming model then cry me a river that you have to pay for it. It is not more convenient for me.
How is that different from what happens now? Just how many private developers have sued over free software being redistributed without the code. Try suing a company like google and see where it gets you? If you don't go bankrupt from legal costs what are the chances you haven't violated one of their numerous copyrights and patents.
It is a license nightmare why should you have to release all your code because you include 1 library or worse still a library that includes a library that includes a library that contains a requirement release the source. We should be efficient and forcing people to re-implement code is not.
I would be much happier if copyright just didn't exist, if you want to write code for the greater good, just do that. Stop trying to control other people.
Yes because the moment a woman feels threatened by you she has every right to turn around and shoot you.
Guess what when more people walk around with weapons everybody is less safe.
If you are a rational thief and you think the person you are robbing has a gun you shoot them, if you think they are unarmed you let them live because its less of a crime.
Same with rape, if you think the person are raping may have weapon, and you are more likely to get a weapon and use it if you feel threatened, you clearly don't care about the person you are raping
What nonsense of course they have a moral code, it maybe different but they have one.
Here are the stats (wikipedia) on murder for china 0.62 per 100,0000 people the USA is 5.35 per 100,0000.
Just because their morals don't match yours does not mean they have none. Based on the statistics and not your personal biased opinion (since everyone's opinion is biased) you could argue that the US has much less morals than China. Assuming your moral code says murder is bad.
Because people create because they want to create, the don't care that their time is wasted, they want to make something that they enjoy and are proud of.
I may go against the standard economic thinking that people will only create because there is money in it. That is clearly rubbish, true artists create because they are driven to create, they are quite willing to spend there own time and money on things that are very unlikely make them money.
It is quite clear by the way people spend that it is not based optimizing there finances but their perceived enjoyment of life, how may people who live of paycheck to paycheck borrow to buy an iPhone? Debate about which phone is best, aside there are clearly cheaper alternatives out there. They do not logically weigh up the cost and benefits to them.
Stop trying to change human nature, it is not going to happen and change the laws to take advantage of that nature. If we what more creativity all we have to do is have laws that let them.
I would argue that the country has to be wealthy enough to support it in the first place. However the USA does have the resources.
Sure UBI may not work but it may we should be willing to try new things. People are complicated, there are just to many factors to take into consideration to be certain of what the outcome would be. A small trial maybe not be perfect but it may give some insights into whether it would work or not.
There are plenty of things about people that are counter intuitive such as paying them more reduces creativity or winning the lottery doesn't make you happier.
But best go with peoples gut feeling that's very scientific.
It amuses me how people seem to think in binary terms here. Capitalism has problems of what your alternative total socialism with communism. That didin't work.
Capitalism does have its problems, such as the producers not having to pay for environmental costs, the no limits on consumerism, to the inequitable distribution of wealth and socialism has sever problems as well such as little incentive to achieve and not punishing the lazy. But we live in a world where we don't have to have it all one way or another we can have a combination, or possibly think of a third way.
Capitalism has brought a lot of advances but the world is also changing and those advances have also meant that we are now in a position that we are capable of making this world inhabitable, we can either adapt or die.
These are straw-man arguments, if you don't like total capitalism clearly you want total socialism.
Although I agree with you that both far left and far right want censorship. In many respects the USA main stream is anything from left. The USA cannot even provide free hospitals (which every other country in the world provides) or add a background check for owning an automatic rifle. The far left would be advocating communism that is definitely not mainstream in the USA.
Although the left in terms of feminism is mainstream (in the media at least, talking to real women it isn't the case), you are not even allowed to say men may have a valid opinion, or innocent until proven guilty without being labeled misogynist.
so banks can loan out 10 times or more depending on regulations of what they have in accounts
Technically banks can not loan out any more money than they have, the can not just say they have extra money.
It does work out that the amount of money in the economy is 10 time more however. Here is a simplified example:
Say there is $100 or gold coins in the economy that is all in a bank (say there is only 1 bank).
the bank can lend out say 90% so now there is $190, then that $90 goes back into the bank so the bank can lend 90% out of that. Keep going for ever.
So the total amount of money in the economy is 100 (1 + 0.9 +... + 0.9^n +...) = 100 * 1/(1-0.9) = 100 * 10 = 1000. 10 times more than you started with.
It has nothing to do with fiat currency you could just as easily do it with gold coins as long as you trust the bank to give you your gold back when you need it.
So effectively the banks are creating money, but at no point can they say I have $100 of net deposits on my books I can lend out $101.
The solution is obvious, the government pays apple $400 for the building and says look you are doubling your money. If anyone complains arrest them for tax fraud.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
Maybe it is male doctors feel less comfortable with female patients or female patients feel less comfortable with male doctors. I don't know that is pure conjecture, but you can't just jump to conclusion from one study. I don't think the article did, lets just hope the media don't either.
There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes. And, to me, it's worthwhile to make certain that this isn't happening. "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time. Women developers are better at UI because women have an 'eye' for that sort of thing..."
Where have you seen this? I have never worked in a company that states that they hire men over women. There are plenty that publicly state the opposite. So what happens is you see that statistic and imply it is the case.
That's the part that sticks in my craw: "Oh, women/men are better at..."
Heck, there are plenty of cases where courts have assigned child custody to women because, "women are more nurturing." Then they discover that Mom's a coke addict and the kids live in squalor. But, hey, that's better than living with Dad (y'know, the guy who left her because she was a coke addict).
First that statement doesn't mean ALL it means in general. So it is quite possible that a man is more nurturing than most if not all women, or a women is the most brilliant software engineer that ever lived. In the case of the coke addict mother the court should look at individual circumstances judges certainly get paid enough do that.
I don't know if women are more nurturing (in general) or not and what causes it if they are, society or genetics or most likely a mixture of both. But in order to find out we look at the evidence unemotionally without preconceptions the answer should be.
Slashdot Mirror
The maths:
p/r = 1/30 where p is the population online, r seconds per insult per person
30 * p = r
Also from (https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/) 3.1 million children die from hunger annually, that is 1 every 10 seconds, although you also need to take into account population, somebody actually died not had an insult directed at them online which they may or may not have read.
So a not so bad thing happens, not so often is now "shocking".
so what, will a significant portion of stop going to Disney land, or stop watching there movies just because some makes a new steam-boat willy cartoon?
That's because biometrics aren't used much, if iris scans where used to log in every web site then they would be immediately compromised the moment you logged in. Also how do you know that Canada Border Services Agency only holds the hash, did you examine the scanner code?
Go to the supermarket, well the food maybe poison, you should have to test it yourself. How would you test well you couldn't ask someone they could be lying, you would have to do your own research to determine those test food safety. That would be all everybody would be doing checking that everybody else is not lying.
Install software? did you read the source and then compile the source yourself? did you check the compiler and compile that too? did you get an electron microscope and check the hardware your software is running on? what about that electron microscope you sure someone didn't mess with that?
Society runs on trust, that is one reason I believe people don't read terms and condition, they trust that they are reasonable, imagine the total time used if everybody read all the terms and conditions, and constantly checked for update for every site they visited, all the software they ran, and service they used.
It is usually better to trust and sometimes get screwed over than never trust.
What I think the grandparent said, Trump is the rebellion against academia, they are proponents of free trade, welfare system, women's rights, and immigration. People just want to be able to work support themselves and have job security.
While I think academia principles are good in moderation, they don't allow seem to debate, they just scream racist, sexist, protectionist.
Free trade good, but not to the point that all production is shipped of overseas, and only people making any money are the people that own the intellectual property.
Welfare system good, but not to the point that working people can barley make a better living than unemployed, it should be hard being on a benefit. Women's rights good, they should be equal, but not superior, saying you look nice, to someone can loose your job, or you don't get hired over a woman just because you are male or white.
Immigration good, but don't let every body in, they need to be in real need, or prove they will benefit society.
This is not just a left thing though, the right also go way too far.
Some of these problems may just be perceived ones, but when you ignore people, or just tell them they are wrong they don't just turn around and agree with you they just get more extreme in the opposite direction because they think you are being unreasonable.
The world is not binary or even linear, there is a whole spectrum of solutions that we can be discussing without name calling or assuming the other person is somehow evil.
I don't see why a self signed certificate gets a warning, but http doesn't it is no less secure. An Icon saying it is less secure should be enough (say you may not be going to the site you expect). It is really annoying that you have to pay someone a recurring fee just to add a little security. Even worse for routers that don't have a DNS entry, you have to start managing your own certificates.
Perhaps its driving around everywhere which contributes to both
I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population. I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.
It is not that they don't add value, of course they do. The question is are they taking a reasonable proportion of the money. Capitalism has no concept of fair, and left to its own the strong will take advantage of the weak (just like in nature) and the strong that don't will be outperformed by the strong that do. Laws like minimum wage allow society to set level of what is considered fair.
A coffee farmer gets less than 1 cent for every cup of coffee you buy, clearly a lot of middle men are taking there cut.
Even if you feed that cow on grass grown in the field it has an opportunity cost that field could be used to grow food directly for consumption. We are not talking about cost here in dollar terms but cost to the environment. These are quite different things, if I throw my trash outside it cost me nothing.
A cow has to eat and convert that energy into meat, like all processes that is has loss even if the cow just stood there from birth doing nothing but eating. But the cow also walks around and does what ever cows find interesting.
First most prey outnumber predators because well it has to otherwise the predators die of starvation.
Second the place where fewer plants grow would naturally be taken over by wild plants
If you have a problem with streaming then you should provide a copy that can be downloaded and played offline. If you want you waste bandwidth with a streaming model then cry me a river that you have to pay for it. It is not more convenient for me.
How is that different from what happens now? Just how many private developers have sued over free software being redistributed without the code. Try suing a company like google and see where it gets you? If you don't go bankrupt from legal costs what are the chances you haven't violated one of their numerous copyrights and patents.
It is a license nightmare why should you have to release all your code because you include 1 library or worse still a library that includes a library that includes a library that contains a requirement release the source. We should be efficient and forcing people to re-implement code is not.
I would be much happier if copyright just didn't exist, if you want to write code for the greater good, just do that. Stop trying to control other people.
Yes because the moment a woman feels threatened by you she has every right to turn around and shoot you.
Guess what when more people walk around with weapons everybody is less safe.
If you are a rational thief and you think the person you are robbing has a gun you shoot them, if you think they are unarmed you let them live because its less of a crime.
Same with rape, if you think the person are raping may have weapon, and you are more likely to get a weapon and use it if you feel threatened, you clearly don't care about the person you are raping
What nonsense of course they have a moral code, it maybe different but they have one.
Here are the stats (wikipedia) on murder for china 0.62 per 100,0000 people the USA is 5.35 per 100,0000.
Just because their morals don't match yours does not mean they have none. Based on the statistics and not your personal biased opinion (since everyone's opinion is biased) you could argue that the US has much less morals than China. Assuming your moral code says murder is bad.
Because people create because they want to create, the don't care that their time is wasted, they want to make something that they enjoy and are proud of.
I may go against the standard economic thinking that people will only create because there is money in it. That is clearly rubbish, true artists create because they are driven to create, they are quite willing to spend there own time and money on things that are very unlikely make them money.
It is quite clear by the way people spend that it is not based optimizing there finances but their perceived enjoyment of life, how may people who live of paycheck to paycheck borrow to buy an iPhone? Debate about which phone is best, aside there are clearly cheaper alternatives out there. They do not logically weigh up the cost and benefits to them.
Stop trying to change human nature, it is not going to happen and change the laws to take advantage of that nature. If we what more creativity all we have to do is have laws that let them.
I would argue that the country has to be wealthy enough to support it in the first place. However the USA does have the resources.
Sure UBI may not work but it may we should be willing to try new things. People are complicated, there are just to many factors to take into consideration to be certain of what the outcome would be. A small trial maybe not be perfect but it may give some insights into whether it would work or not.
There are plenty of things about people that are counter intuitive such as paying them more reduces creativity or winning the lottery doesn't make you happier.
But best go with peoples gut feeling that's very scientific.
It amuses me how people seem to think in binary terms here. Capitalism has problems of what your alternative total socialism with communism. That didin't work.
Capitalism does have its problems, such as the producers not having to pay for environmental costs, the no limits on consumerism, to the inequitable distribution of wealth and socialism has sever problems as well such as little incentive to achieve and not punishing the lazy. But we live in a world where we don't have to have it all one way or another we can have a combination, or possibly think of a third way.
Capitalism has brought a lot of advances but the world is also changing and those advances have also meant that we are now in a position that we are capable of making this world inhabitable, we can either adapt or die.
These are straw-man arguments, if you don't like total capitalism clearly you want total socialism.
Although I agree with you that both far left and far right want censorship. In many respects the USA main stream is anything from left. The USA cannot even provide free hospitals (which every other country in the world provides) or add a background check for owning an automatic rifle. The far left would be advocating communism that is definitely not mainstream in the USA. Although the left in terms of feminism is mainstream (in the media at least, talking to real women it isn't the case), you are not even allowed to say men may have a valid opinion, or innocent until proven guilty without being labeled misogynist.
so banks can loan out 10 times or more depending on regulations of what they have in accounts
Technically banks can not loan out any more money than they have, the can not just say they have extra money. It does work out that the amount of money in the economy is 10 time more however. Here is a simplified example: Say there is $100 or gold coins in the economy that is all in a bank (say there is only 1 bank). the bank can lend out say 90% so now there is $190, then that $90 goes back into the bank so the bank can lend 90% out of that. Keep going for ever. So the total amount of money in the economy is 100 (1 + 0.9 + ... + 0.9^n + ...) = 100 * 1/(1-0.9) = 100 * 10 = 1000. 10 times more than you started with.
It has nothing to do with fiat currency you could just as easily do it with gold coins as long as you trust the bank to give you your gold back when you need it.
So effectively the banks are creating money, but at no point can they say I have $100 of net deposits on my books I can lend out $101.
The solution is obvious, the government pays apple $400 for the building and says look you are doubling your money. If anyone complains arrest them for tax fraud.
I think this is non-refueled flight.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
Maybe it is male doctors feel less comfortable with female patients or female patients feel less comfortable with male doctors. I don't know that is pure conjecture, but you can't just jump to conclusion from one study. I don't think the article did, lets just hope the media don't either.
There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes. And, to me, it's worthwhile to make certain that this isn't happening. "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time. Women developers are better at UI because women have an 'eye' for that sort of thing..."
Where have you seen this? I have never worked in a company that states that they hire men over women. There are plenty that publicly state the opposite. So what happens is you see that statistic and imply it is the case.
That's the part that sticks in my craw: "Oh, women/men are better at..."
Heck, there are plenty of cases where courts have assigned child custody to women because, "women are more nurturing." Then they discover that Mom's a coke addict and the kids live in squalor. But, hey, that's better than living with Dad (y'know, the guy who left her because she was a coke addict).
First that statement doesn't mean ALL it means in general. So it is quite possible that a man is more nurturing than most if not all women, or a women is the most brilliant software engineer that ever lived. In the case of the coke addict mother the court should look at individual circumstances judges certainly get paid enough do that.
I don't know if women are more nurturing (in general) or not and what causes it if they are, society or genetics or most likely a mixture of both. But in order to find out we look at the evidence unemotionally without preconceptions the answer should be.