But it's bad advice to someone who has no aptitude or affinity to coding. We already have enough cargo-cult programmers that can do barely more than copy/paste code from stackexchange.
You only win the prisoner's dilemma by defecting as long as you play with someone who cooperates because he learned that this is actually the winning strategy. Once he notices you're defecting, he'll start doing the same, ending up in lower effectiveness for both of you.
The opposite of knowing is not "not knowing". The opposite of knowing is believing. Not knowing can be cured. If I do not know something, I ask someone who knows, and then I know myself.
Believing is fairly resistant to most cures. It usually takes a near unsurmountable amount of evidence to replace that what is held as a firm belief with knowledge.
On a purely biological level, (mammal) gender is determined by the number of X and Y chromosomes in a body. The usual configurations that account for almost all mammals is either 2X, which would result in a biologically female organism or YX which would result in a biologically male organism. Any other configurations are quite rare.
If you can point to some biological proof (or hell, at least something resembling an indication) that there are 59 genders, I'd expect nothing less than you being the next laureate for the Nobel Prize for medicine.
If you're talking about "tolerance", you might want to talk on a sociology level. In biology, tolerance mostly tells you how much an organism can stomach before it barfs.
The difference is that you can tell the scientist to show you and he can. Try that with a priest.
It seems that the dimwits think that reality is just what the majority accepted as true. Where the fuck does this notion come from? Science and religion could not be further apart. Including the original meaning of the words describing them.
Just so we can ridicule you properly, list the three things of that list that are only relabeled "politically incorrect" despite being at the very least possibly true.
I'd like to hear about the alternatives. Trusting old books written by goat herders that didn't have any idea about the universe? Or would you prefer to put your trust in blabbering idiots that can provide nothing but their word for the bullshit they're selling?
Science offers testable and falsifiable information. Yes, that information can be wrong, but until you have something better at hand, it's the best we have. It's at the very least heaps above "the big whoohoo in the sky has said" and "trust me because I know everything but can't say because else the world government gets me".
Neither am I. But a sheet of paper is something I should be able to spell correctly in 3 languages and pronounce fairly accurately at least in two.
English is a language with many, many homonyms. It's very easy to get a completely different sentence out of something, even by improper capitalization. Take the sentence "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse". Without proper capitalization, people might think you and your extended family have quite bizarre hobbies, even though your elderly uncle just enjoys horseback riding.
It's interesting to watch how many people shun GMO foods and then turn around to poison their body with bleach and cyanide because they were told it's "detoxing" and cures cancer.
The intersection of those two sets is stunningly large.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same, if Twitter only punishes those that tweet this to journalists, where exactly is the problem?
Well, they already demonstrated that they can't handle irony, that much is at least true.
So ... these "journalists" (I'll use the term loosely here) were laid off for harassing people?
Technically, so is religion. The only reason religion does not fit the clinical description of delusion is that is explicitly exempt.
But it's bad advice to someone who has no aptitude or affinity to coding. We already have enough cargo-cult programmers that can do barely more than copy/paste code from stackexchange.
You only win the prisoner's dilemma by defecting as long as you play with someone who cooperates because he learned that this is actually the winning strategy. Once he notices you're defecting, he'll start doing the same, ending up in lower effectiveness for both of you.
I guess we're heading for shittier times.
I miss sarcasm and irony tags, so ... you really believe that, do you?
You have seen the DDoSes from 1-2 years ago amplified by crappy IoT devices?
Do you know why they stopped?
Human lives are one thing, but threaten businesses and you'll see laws change!
Orthography is important. I want my AC to chill, not to shill.
Then again, maybe I could sell it to DC if it does.
You do know that the difference to now is that "warrant" part, yes?
Or just make bricking insecure IoT crap legal. I'm fairly sure you'll find a lot of people doing just that for shits and giggles.
If you brick it after hacking it, you at least remove it from the pool of potential DDoS drones.
Are we talking biology now or sociology?
We obviously have very different editions of the bible.
The opposite of knowing is not "not knowing". The opposite of knowing is believing. Not knowing can be cured. If I do not know something, I ask someone who knows, and then I know myself.
Believing is fairly resistant to most cures. It usually takes a near unsurmountable amount of evidence to replace that what is held as a firm belief with knowledge.
On a purely biological level, (mammal) gender is determined by the number of X and Y chromosomes in a body. The usual configurations that account for almost all mammals is either 2X, which would result in a biologically female organism or YX which would result in a biologically male organism. Any other configurations are quite rare.
If you can point to some biological proof (or hell, at least something resembling an indication) that there are 59 genders, I'd expect nothing less than you being the next laureate for the Nobel Prize for medicine.
If you're talking about "tolerance", you might want to talk on a sociology level. In biology, tolerance mostly tells you how much an organism can stomach before it barfs.
The difference is that you can tell the scientist to show you and he can. Try that with a priest.
It seems that the dimwits think that reality is just what the majority accepted as true. Where the fuck does this notion come from? Science and religion could not be further apart. Including the original meaning of the words describing them.
Just so we can ridicule you properly, list the three things of that list that are only relabeled "politically incorrect" despite being at the very least possibly true.
Science is often abused and distorted by politicians with an agenda.
I don't know, but I guess it could check out. Can I see the sources?
Science is the art of erring towards knowledge.
I'd like to hear about the alternatives. Trusting old books written by goat herders that didn't have any idea about the universe? Or would you prefer to put your trust in blabbering idiots that can provide nothing but their word for the bullshit they're selling?
Science offers testable and falsifiable information. Yes, that information can be wrong, but until you have something better at hand, it's the best we have. It's at the very least heaps above "the big whoohoo in the sky has said" and "trust me because I know everything but can't say because else the world government gets me".
Neither am I. But a sheet of paper is something I should be able to spell correctly in 3 languages and pronounce fairly accurately at least in two.
English is a language with many, many homonyms. It's very easy to get a completely different sentence out of something, even by improper capitalization. Take the sentence "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse". Without proper capitalization, people might think you and your extended family have quite bizarre hobbies, even though your elderly uncle just enjoys horseback riding.
Question: Does orthography belong on your outer box or on the rest of your paper?
This.
It's interesting to watch how many people shun GMO foods and then turn around to poison their body with bleach and cyanide because they were told it's "detoxing" and cures cancer.
The intersection of those two sets is stunningly large.