now the temperature of sea water has risen enough that with additional heating it is enough to melt the ice.
From the featured (?) article: "[a hole] was observed in the same location, in Antarctica's Weddell Sea, in the 1970s, [...] back then, scientists' observation tools weren't nearly as good, so that hole remained largely unstudied".
I don't think that Russia needs to buy Facebook ads to sow hate and dissent in the USA: reading these comments, I think that you are terribly capable of sowing hate by yourself. I think that Trump is quite foolish, but the hate and belittling campaign against him is not a sign of rightful social activism, but another mean through which American institutions are weakened. This kind of social turmoil is nowadays quite common in all the Western world (anti-establishment movements are strong everywhere), no matter if you are conservative, liberal, socialist or whatever: the pretension of being some kind of sole paladin of justice is what is killing the democratic process in the USA and in Europe.
The Wandering Jew by Eugene Sue is the most censored book. It is so censored that even a show about censored books does not mention it. The sad part is that it was praised by many contemporaries (from E. A. Poe to E. Salgari) as a literary masterpiece.
Microsoft didn't 'embrace and extended' systemd into Debian, ruining Debian's reliability.
At this point I think that all this systemd whining is just trolling. That or there are a lot of Linux newbies that want to use bleeding edge software not realizing what unstable means.
In the good old days of Internet we had the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but now we have evolved, we use the Reductio ad conspirationem. Everything you do not agree with is a conspiracy theory.
If you wanted to make a bundle as a climate scientist, you'd find credible proof that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening.
Except that nobody ever made money saying "everything is all right, nothing to see here". To make money, real money, you need an emergency, an incoming cataclysm, a "the end of the world is nigh" coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".
It does not matter. The bottom line is always "dump a few billion dollars more in climate studies". Human Made Global Warming is a goldmine for climatologists.
High-skill women switched to equivalent high-paying jobs (medicine and law,) where there is less implicit bias because of more objective measures of competence (e.g. MCATs, LSATs, the bar exam.)
More objective measures of competence? That is a bold statement. And, besides that, I am not so sure that medicine and law requires the same skill set as software programming or engineering. I think that even medicine requires different skills than law.
Moreover I do not think that those are good example, because law and more so medicine requires a lot of empathy, which is linked to the neuroticism Damore spoke of.
the whole premise is toxic. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women. which is a bullshit lie, but unfortunately self-fulfilling.
What's really toxic is the misrepresentation of any idea that challenges the social justice mantra. He never claimed that women as such are less suited than men for tech jobs, instead he stated that women tend to prefer non-tech jobs and so there is a natural (in contrast to the evil white male syndicate theory) scarcity of them in tech companies. Simply that.
Women used to be in the field and performing near-parity with men, then tech became a men's job.
Anecdotal evidence, but still: my mother took a computer science PhD course in the early '70s, that was basically the last time she programmed something. Why? Because back then programming was science (she's a physicist) and it was suggested to women because it was the softer part of mathematics and physics, while today it is technology (engineers the likes). The perception of the programming world changed radically in the last 50 years.
I'm with you. They can even replace it with a threshold of 0.0000005, but if many "scientists" don't grasp statistics and don't know measure theory, it's all a wasted effort.
Yeah because circumcision is widespread among Christians. Oh wait, you are another one of those guys who do not know the difference between Old and New Testament.
Perfectly willing to claim Trump was elected from vote hacking - er no. President Trump was elected by an out moded and no longer useful electoral college system, rather than a simple popular vote. Also, fear, fake news, and statements that play on the ignorance of his supporters and lack of imagination.
Well, one of the biggest fake news is about the vote hacking. Probably, it is only surpassed by the DNC hacking fake news.
Private companies upgrade regularly, realizing it improves security/productivity.
You are not aware of the number of Windows Xp/Windows CE 5.0 systems sold to this day. Industrial machinery, HVAC control systems, medical equipment etc. are all using outdated, insecure operating systems.
1] Defence and aerospace industry are very relevant in Russia, as well as mining and other sectors. The Saudi oil price war is on shale oil, not on Russian oil, and it is a lost war. At this point a climate change denier could be quite good for coal miners, but nothing more: we are decades away from being oil independent.
2] The Clintons had economic ties with Russians. The fact is that the reckless political positions of H Clinton (Arab Spring, eastern Europe) were obviously frowned upon by Russia (and even by other European countries). However Trump always looked too irrational and impulsive to be a good alternative to her in that regard.
3] See point 2. Instability is never good, especially when instability is all around you. H Clinton fomented instability with her support to the Arab Spring and the Euromaidan movement, both costed a lot to Russia.
4] I do not think that Trump is that stupid. The Saudi vs Qatar row is going to damage Saudi Arabia, Qatar and all the fundamentalists much more than they realize. That row is going to damage OPEC and that is a plus for the US.
The results of this election, and the fact that the more Trump's lies are exposed, the more his supporters angrily make excuses for his behavior.
Funnily enough, H Clinton's supporters get blamed for the same reason. In a better world the presidential race would have been Sanders vs Kasich, but it seems "That America Is Full of Racist and Selfish People".
The kneejerk reaction of dismissing any suggestion of election meddling to "looking for excuses" for Clinton's loss is less than useful.
Clinton lost. It's over.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely concerned about the implications of some of the allegations.
The allegations are concerning as much as they matter regarding the explanation of the results of the presidential election. If the outcome of the presidential election was not influenced by the alleged hacks, the alleged hacks are of little concern. Consequently, and above all, those alleged hacks do not help to explain why Trump won.
I'd like to see the worst ones, then. That article is full of rants, but the author seems to be unable to give them weight. When the author tries to give facts, he fails, e.g.: the first accusation is that Trump is followed by an army of bots on social media, but that obvioulsy does not mean anything if you do not know how many bots are usually among the followers of famous people. In fact, in 2016 we knew that "More Than a Third of Trump’s and Clinton’s Twitter Followers Are Reportedly Fake", but the author seems to ignore that, or perhaps he is just blinded by his own hate.
How about understand exactly what happened, lock things down and educate people so it is at least harder to pull off next time? Or is that too common sense?
I sincerely do not think that this helps understanding what happened. First of all, Trump won because H Clinton was a terrible candidate that even many Democrats could barely vote for the presidency. Second: hacks and attempted hacks happen every day, all day, from all over the world. The results of these are usually negligible. Third, the most damaging hacks were not hacks at all (and this is unsurprising). The Clinton email server was not hacked, it was that the Secretary of State logged via web to her server, everywhere she happened to be (Russia, Middle East, airports, starbucks...): someone stole her password, perhaps sniffing, perhaps simply peeping at her. All the wikileaks stuff was the result of, well, leaks (Snowden, Manning etc.). The only outliner would be the Democratic hack: Occam's razor and the principle of induction are at odds with it.
I'd rather try to eviscerate the first point, instead of looking for excuses.
The article by Bruce Perens, like all pro-GPL writing, is nothing but Orwellian double-speak, constantly talking about freedom but at the same time insisting that freedom means "you must do exactly as I say".
That's exactly how freedom works. In free societies, freedom means you cannot murder, you cannot steal, you cannot disparage, you cannot do a lot of actions, deemed bad. You should know that, Hobbes already talked about it a few centuries ago.
I can't get these emotional statements. Perhaps you could make a case for treason if Kushner tried to use Russian communication lines to talk to the British prime minister or the chairman of the Federal Reserve, but he allegedly tried to use Russian communication lines to talk to Russian leaders. Paradoxically it would be a problem if the Russians would leak the content of the talks to some uninvited third party (e.g. China, Iran,Turkey, wikileaks, the New York Times, an anonymous coward...), but right now it was the FBI that leaked it to the press.
Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?
Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.
I'm sorry, but that's the point of such secret meetings. They're supposed to be kept secret, not public domain stuff that you (American or not) can read about on newspapers, wikileaks, internet blogs and the likes. When your officials cannot be trusted to keep their secrets, you can see these shady behaviours: senior advisers that prefer foreign communication equipment or a secretary of state that uses her personal email server, instead of the federal one. The goal is the same.
Moreover, there is another obvious, but interesting point in the article: "Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts". That works both ways. When there are so many leaks, as it has been the case lately, you may expect lot of misinformation from the source of the leaks (i.e. intelligence agencies).
Slashdot Mirror
now the temperature of sea water has risen enough that with additional heating it is enough to melt the ice.
From the featured (?) article: "[a hole] was observed in the same location, in Antarctica's Weddell Sea, in the 1970s, [...] back then, scientists' observation tools weren't nearly as good, so that hole remained largely unstudied".
I don't think that Russia needs to buy Facebook ads to sow hate and dissent in the USA: reading these comments, I think that you are terribly capable of sowing hate by yourself. I think that Trump is quite foolish, but the hate and belittling campaign against him is not a sign of rightful social activism, but another mean through which American institutions are weakened. This kind of social turmoil is nowadays quite common in all the Western world (anti-establishment movements are strong everywhere), no matter if you are conservative, liberal, socialist or whatever: the pretension of being some kind of sole paladin of justice is what is killing the democratic process in the USA and in Europe.
The Wandering Jew by Eugene Sue is the most censored book. It is so censored that even a show about censored books does not mention it. The sad part is that it was praised by many contemporaries (from E. A. Poe to E. Salgari) as a literary masterpiece.
Microsoft didn't 'embrace and extended' systemd into Debian, ruining Debian's reliability.
At this point I think that all this systemd whining is just trolling.
That or there are a lot of Linux newbies that want to use bleeding edge software not realizing what unstable means.
If you wanted to make a bundle as a climate scientist, you'd find credible proof that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening.
Except that nobody ever made money saying "everything is all right, nothing to see here". To make money, real money, you need an emergency, an incoming cataclysm, a "the end of the world is nigh" coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".
It does not matter. The bottom line is always "dump a few billion dollars more in climate studies". Human Made Global Warming is a goldmine for climatologists.
Well, after all he said: "women interest me more than most other things".
High-skill women switched to equivalent high-paying jobs (medicine and law,) where there is less implicit bias because of more objective measures of competence (e.g. MCATs, LSATs, the bar exam.)
More objective measures of competence? That is a bold statement. And, besides that, I am not so sure that medicine and law requires the same skill set as software programming or engineering. I think that even medicine requires different skills than law.
Moreover I do not think that those are good example, because law and more so medicine requires a lot of empathy, which is linked to the neuroticism Damore spoke of.
Certainly that can't be because of biological differences. It therefore must be about ageism and bean counting.
Actually, since older engineers are probably male, it is about biological differences.
Harvard confirmed that he does NOT have a PhD. He has a Masters and he CLAIMS he has a PhD.
Nope. He claimed to have been a PhD student for three years, which is right. Then he took a masters.
the whole premise is toxic. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women. which is a bullshit lie, but unfortunately self-fulfilling.
What's really toxic is the misrepresentation of any idea that challenges the social justice mantra. He never claimed that women as such are less suited than men for tech jobs, instead he stated that women tend to prefer non-tech jobs and so there is a natural (in contrast to the evil white male syndicate theory) scarcity of them in tech companies. Simply that.
Women used to be in the field and performing near-parity with men, then tech became a men's job.
Anecdotal evidence, but still: my mother took a computer science PhD course in the early '70s, that was basically the last time she programmed something. Why? Because back then programming was science (she's a physicist) and it was suggested to women because it was the softer part of mathematics and physics, while today it is technology (engineers the likes). The perception of the programming world changed radically in the last 50 years.
And it's not illegal in Russia to subvert elections in the US.
The unlawfully spied one would question the relevance of that statement.
I think that medics are authoritative about sexes, a physiological feature, and not about genders, a social feature.
I'm with you. They can even replace it with a threshold of 0.0000005, but if many "scientists" don't grasp statistics and don't know measure theory, it's all a wasted effort.
Yeah because circumcision is widespread among Christians. Oh wait, you are another one of those guys who do not know the difference between Old and New Testament.
Perfectly willing to claim Trump was elected from vote hacking - er no. President Trump was elected by an out moded and no longer useful electoral college system, rather than a simple popular vote. Also, fear, fake news, and statements that play on the ignorance of his supporters and lack of imagination.
Well, one of the biggest fake news is about the vote hacking. Probably, it is only surpassed by the DNC hacking fake news.
Private companies upgrade regularly, realizing it improves security/productivity.
You are not aware of the number of Windows Xp/Windows CE 5.0 systems sold to this day. Industrial machinery, HVAC control systems, medical equipment etc. are all using outdated, insecure operating systems.
Those do not seem strong points to me.
1] Defence and aerospace industry are very relevant in Russia, as well as mining and other sectors. The Saudi oil price war is on shale oil, not on Russian oil, and it is a lost war. At this point a climate change denier could be quite good for coal miners, but nothing more: we are decades away from being oil independent.
2] The Clintons had economic ties with Russians. The fact is that the reckless political positions of H Clinton (Arab Spring, eastern Europe) were obviously frowned upon by Russia (and even by other European countries). However Trump always looked too irrational and impulsive to be a good alternative to her in that regard.
3] See point 2. Instability is never good, especially when instability is all around you. H Clinton fomented instability with her support to the Arab Spring and the Euromaidan movement, both costed a lot to Russia.
4] I do not think that Trump is that stupid. The Saudi vs Qatar row is going to damage Saudi Arabia, Qatar and all the fundamentalists much more than they realize. That row is going to damage OPEC and that is a plus for the US.
The results of this election, and the fact that the more Trump's lies are exposed, the more his supporters angrily make excuses for his behavior.
Funnily enough, H Clinton's supporters get blamed for the same reason. In a better world the presidential race would have been Sanders vs Kasich, but it seems "That America Is Full of Racist and Selfish People".
And they're both common sense ideas
Like 90% of all the IP "thefts". 99.9% when speaking about software patents.
The kneejerk reaction of dismissing any suggestion of election meddling to "looking for excuses" for Clinton's loss is less than useful. Clinton lost. It's over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely concerned about the implications of some of the allegations.
The allegations are concerning as much as they matter regarding the explanation of the results of the presidential election. If the outcome of the presidential election was not influenced by the alleged hacks, the alleged hacks are of little concern. Consequently, and above all, those alleged hacks do not help to explain why Trump won.
One of the better articles I found on this subject is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/...
I'd like to see the worst ones, then. That article is full of rants, but the author seems to be unable to give them weight. When the author tries to give facts, he fails, e.g.: the first accusation is that Trump is followed by an army of bots on social media, but that obvioulsy does not mean anything if you do not know how many bots are usually among the followers of famous people. In fact, in 2016 we knew that "More Than a Third of Trump’s and Clinton’s Twitter Followers Are Reportedly Fake", but the author seems to ignore that, or perhaps he is just blinded by his own hate.
How about understand exactly what happened, lock things down and educate people so it is at least harder to pull off next time? Or is that too common sense?
I sincerely do not think that this helps understanding what happened.
First of all, Trump won because H Clinton was a terrible candidate that even many Democrats could barely vote for the presidency.
Second: hacks and attempted hacks happen every day, all day, from all over the world. The results of these are usually negligible.
Third, the most damaging hacks were not hacks at all (and this is unsurprising). The Clinton email server was not hacked, it was that the Secretary of State logged via web to her server, everywhere she happened to be (Russia, Middle East, airports, starbucks...): someone stole her password, perhaps sniffing, perhaps simply peeping at her. All the wikileaks stuff was the result of, well, leaks (Snowden, Manning etc.). The only outliner would be the Democratic hack: Occam's razor and the principle of induction are at odds with it.
I'd rather try to eviscerate the first point, instead of looking for excuses.
The article by Bruce Perens, like all pro-GPL writing, is nothing but Orwellian double-speak, constantly talking about freedom but at the same time insisting that freedom means "you must do exactly as I say".
That's exactly how freedom works. In free societies, freedom means you cannot murder, you cannot steal, you cannot disparage, you cannot do a lot of actions, deemed bad. You should know that, Hobbes already talked about it a few centuries ago.
I can't get these emotional statements. Perhaps you could make a case for treason if Kushner tried to use Russian communication lines to talk to the British prime minister or the chairman of the Federal Reserve, but he allegedly tried to use Russian communication lines to talk to Russian leaders. Paradoxically it would be a problem if the Russians would leak the content of the talks to some uninvited third party (e.g. China, Iran,Turkey, wikileaks, the New York Times, an anonymous coward...), but right now it was the FBI that leaked it to the press.
Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?
Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.
I'm sorry, but that's the point of such secret meetings. They're supposed to be kept secret, not public domain stuff that you (American or not) can read about on newspapers, wikileaks, internet blogs and the likes. When your officials cannot be trusted to keep their secrets, you can see these shady behaviours: senior advisers that prefer foreign communication equipment or a secretary of state that uses her personal email server, instead of the federal one. The goal is the same.
Moreover, there is another obvious, but interesting point in the article: "Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts". That works both ways. When there are so many leaks, as it has been the case lately, you may expect lot of misinformation from the source of the leaks (i.e. intelligence agencies).