Taxation is the honoring of a contract, the social contract you are implicitly a signatory to as a citizen of a civilized society.
You gain the benefit of roads you can drive on, tap water that is available and safe to drink, house fires that get put out, an educated populace (you know, all those citizens who don't happen to be your son), and so on.
You pay for those benefits via your taxes.
If you don't wish to enjoy those benefits, you are free to go somewhere like Somalia, where you won't be burdened with them... and neither will you enjoy all those benefits.
A lot of vague marketing-speak in this article. "Deep learning"? The article basically talks about neural networks, just one of the techniques in machine learning. Neural networks were hyped for a long time, perhaps because of the catchy name.
You could have answered your own questions with a quick search, rather than assume that that which you are ignorant about is mere "marketing-speak."
Enough of our mealy-mouthed, passive acquiescence to the willful denial of reality.
Enough of our society shooting itself in the foot by watering down our science education, and our discussion of science in the public and political sphere by mixing in myth and pseudoscience.
There is no controversy. There is no debate. There is no real "other side" to this discussion.
Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most wel-developed, well-supported scientific theories we have. It as much settled science as science can get.
Evolution is a fact, in that it is the label for a phenomena we can directly and indirectly observe.
Evolutionary theory is not somehow inferior to fact. Indeed, it is in many ways superior to the level of fact, in that it is made up of facts, and is tested and confirmed, repeatedly, against reality.
If your religion claims that evolution isn't true, then, when it comes to this subject, your religion is wrong.
We should stop letting this nonsense slide. Our nation is competing against highly technological, committed, dedicated workers from other countries. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by mixing myth with our science.
Interesting that most of the things you list are in Windows 7, and some of then in Vista.
I wouldn't know... my M$ machine is a laptop running XP that I use for work, and, up to now, I've rarely needed to even touch a Vista or Win 7 machine.
I'll probably be using Win 7 soon for a client's project... so I guess I'll get to see what it offers firsthand.
I find Unity to be reliable and useful... but there an awful lot of window managers out there, many of which can be configured to give some version of the functionality I get out of Unity.
But then, for me, Unity "just works". It's got rough edge or two here or there, but one of the reasons I've been sticking with Ubuntu is that it's got a large user base, and puts out frequent updates, and regular distribution upgrades, so the problems get fixed sooner or later.
The options you listed could give me some variant of the functionality I have now... of course, once I did a dist-upgrade, that functionality was there before me without me having to do anything special.
But, to each their own... we each have our own ideas as to what constitutes "useful", or "desirable" when it comes to our interfaces.
Can you give one real reason as to why you feel that it is the most usable, as compared to the gnome interface in 10.10? Old time users are not really immune to the "Ooh shiny!" effect.
I can hit the "Windows" key, type a few letters, and instantly be able to launch the application I want, or open the file I'm looking for
At a glance, I can see which applications are open regardless of which desktop I happen to be in
I can quickly see an image of, then jump to any of the open instances of a running application
I can quickly create custom launchers that "bundle" different applications as needed
You asked for one. There's four off the top of my head. I like the "Ooh shiny!" effect as much as the next geek, but I'm finding Unity to be very usable, and to help me be more productive.
I've been using 11.04 with Unity since it became available... and it has become my favorite UI.
I've had zero stability problems, and have found it to be one of the most usable interfaces I've ever had... and I've been using Debian or Debian variants since '98.
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
Macro vs micro evolution is a distinction made for convenience, not to represent any special difference between the two. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales, and if one works, the other has to.
No, that's not necessarily true. That's an assumption, and one rather largely unproven. Thereby, it's not demonstrable and is therefore faith, not science.
That's the great thing about science -- using small things that we can observe to understand big things that we can't.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying that since we will probably never be able to watch a planet form up-close, we'll never understand how planet formation works. Who cares if we understand the basics (gravity, thermodynamics, radioactive decay, conservation of momentum), we haven't actually seen it so despite what we know, it must be magic.
For example, Newtonian Physics works great at the macro (every-day-object), slow-speed level. However, it substantially breaks down at the macro, high-speed and the micro levels. Einstein improved this with special relativity, though it still breaks down at the sub-micro levels, where Quantum mechanics fine tune from there using vastly different equations - different enough it cannot be reconciled (yet) with Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics. Yet, we wouldn't know that there is any break down of the Newtonian Physics without demonstrating it, the same goes for Einsteinian Physics.
Fact is, Macro Evolution has not been proven by any scientific means. Extrapolating it from Micro-Evolution is not valid science as it may not work or work any where near what we expect - which we won't know until we try to replicate it and succeed for fail.
Now for part of the kicker - Micro-Evolution has been shown to be temporary in many cases. Things "evolve" to meet a need, and as soon as the need is no longer they revert back. This has been shown time and time again - example: check out any of the examples used by Darwin to demonstrate Micro-Evolution; they all reverted after a time. All within his lifetime nonetheless.
We can observe the formation of new species in nature and the laboratory.
We have vast quantities of indirect evidence that the same mechanisms which produce speciation - the arising of new species - are the same mechanisms which, over longer timescales, lead to the development of new families, new orders, etc.
This claim that there is some sort of magical barrier which allows for so-called "microevolution" but prevents so-called "macroevolution" makes exactly as much sense as claiming that the forces of erosion can dissolve a sand castle, but that the "macroerosion" of mountains "has not been proven by any scientific means"... which is to say, no sense at all.
Never mind that science does not, ever, prove things true... it only disproves hypotheses, and those which are tested and not dis-proven are granted provisional validity, but always with the understanding that a new observation could result in the need to modify or discard old ideas which have passed past tests.
This pseudo-debate about "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" is nothing more than an element of that propaganda campaign known as "Intelligent Design", the attempt to smuggle Creationism into the pubic school classroom and the public discussion by disguising its true intent behind a layer of pseudoscience. It has absolutely no scientific legitimacy.
"Aren't most graduate programs cutthroat and demanding? More importantly, shouldn't they be?"
Why, exactly, should graduate programs be "cutthroat"? What is gained by doing things that way, as opposed to what is lost?
I've seen graduate programs which used students as the fodder for generating papers and industry funding, and if the student got an education out of the deal, well, that was nice. I have no respect for programs that don't make the development of their students a priority.
Having been a resident of California for 22 years now, I heartily agree.
The whole point of a representative democracy / republic (ideally, anyway) is that the average citizen doesn't have the time, experience, education, or inclination to do the research, discussion, and negotiation necessary to come up with the legislation needed by the complex world we live in, legislation that is meant to serve everyone's interests. So, we elect representatives to take that job on for us.
Here in California, we have people coming up with all sorts of Initiatives that get put before the voters directly, where it then becomes a matter of how well the Initiative is marketed, vs. how well the Initiative serves our interests. It can make California a frustrating State to live in.
The Chinese government has a tough problem... how do you transition a nation of over a billion people, mostly subsistence farmers, into the 21st century?
Unfortunately, one of their chosen means is to attempt to maintain an authoritarian regime. Do the actions of the CCP qualify as "... direct [the internet] in a positive way that benefits everyone in society" ? No, they don't... they seek to maintain power by maintaining order, which they define as maintaining a stranglehold on the expression of ideas. This is done for the benefit of the CCP, not the benefit of the nation.
I can't help but note that you started out as if you were claiming that the Chinese government was acting in such a way as to benefit the Chinese people... but then you describe the government as an elitist oligarchy based on factors as irrelevant to good governance as one's Mandarin accent. You then go on to reference the US debt as if that was somehow relevant to your assertions concerning the Chinese government.
The reader is left wondering what you think you point might be, and what you think constitutes support for that point.
You know, this is my greatest worry: the erosion of science education, the introduction of pseudo-science and myth presented as if they were science.
It's as if there is a segment of this country that isn't comfortable living in a modern, technologically-advanced country with a religiously neutral government, and instead want a theocracy with a technological level frozen at some point before 1950. But, rather than go to such a country, they seek to transform the United States into one.
You offer us a false dichotomy: "let them starve" vs. "feed / clothe / house them for free"
How about "re-train them" ?
Besides, if you take the idea of automation far enough, you eventually make your way to a post-Scarcity economy: automation produces almost anything we desire, so the only limiting factors become raw materials and living space. Add in, say, asteroid mining, and the former ceases to be a consideration. The latter is a tougher nut to crack, but not, I think, insoluble.
If we have enough resources to support everyone via automation...then why not do so, and allow people to find motivations other than "Oh my God, oh my God, if I don't get enough dead president pictures, I will die of starvation / exposure / disease"?
Compared to electronics, neurons are large and slow. They're made of plain old matter.
So, tell me, what is this insurmountable barrier that prevents us from building a piece of hardware that does what brains do? We don't know how to do it now, you speak as if you have certain knowledge we'll never be able to.
Earlier that year, the California State Supreme Court ruled that, based on the text of the State Constitution, there was no justification for barring same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Proposition 8 was put on the ballot, and passed by about 53% of the vote.
However, there are several questions as to whether or not that Proposition was valid, both from the standpoint of whether or not this particular change qualifies as an Amendment or a Revision (which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to get on the ballot, vs. a simple petition requirement as is the case for an Amendment), and there is a question as to whether or not the text of this Amendment is a valid change to the Constitution on legal grounds (in case you didn't know, not every change, via any language, is permissible).
No, I am not impaired. Thanks for asking. I've lived in California for about twenty years. How about you?
There's another fundamental flaw in this argument... the assumption that same-sex couples aren't raising children right this very minute.
They are.
Indeed, a lesbian couple can (via artificial insemination, or even natural insemination) give birth and raise children.
The "extending benefits to the largest group of people" argument works for, not against the legal recognition of same-sex couples via the institution of marriage. The "largest group" in this case is "couples", but you are trying to tell us that the "largest group" is actually "mixed-sex couples."
The logic of this escapes me.
There is a potential for same-sex couples to raise children. They're doing it right now.
As for not restricting marriage to couples who are fertile and intend to reproduce - which would be the logical and consistent application of your "incentivize the production of children" stance - we used to require blood tests before marriage, so requiring a fertility test shouldn't be a problem, particularly for males.
Nope, not buying it... it all sounds like just more attempts at giving bigotry a justification.
Check again... President-Elect Obama has spoken out against Proposition 8. And, given our current troubles, I hardly think the Obama Administration is going to make a Constitutional Amendment for this, of all things, a priority.
California voters can't vote something in which is un-Constitutional, no matter how many vote for it. We don't live in a pure democracy... a fact for which I am eternally grateful, as I don't want to end up being in the 49% of the population that can be held hostage by the other 51% in a pure democracy.
It remains to be seen whether Proposition 8 was Constitutionally valid.
The courts have no authority to change a state's constitution.
True, but that's not what they did. Instead, they ruled on a matter of Constitutionality, namely "Is a ban on same-sex marriage consistent with the State Constitution?"
They ruled that it wasn't... and it is precisely their task to rule on questions of this kind.
What motivates you... a concern for the well-being of this nation, and the world, or a desire for "payback"? Does the undeserved bad treatment you feel was directed at Bush justify undeserved bad treatment of Obama?
It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.
Why would you be surprised? Weren't we taken by Clinton just as easily in the 90's?
Yeah, and look how bad the Clinton years were for this country...
Mr. Peabody, and his boy Sherman, used the Wayback Machine.
The 3DBB was used by Phineas J. Whoopee, when he was educating Tennessee Tuxedo and his walrus pal, Chumley.
Look at my ID. I am old... old as dirt!:)
I used to watch these, as well as "The World of Commander McBragg", and the ever-popular Underdog. "The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an Underdog super-vitamin energy pill." The people involved in the supposed live-action remake of Underdog should all be lowered into wood chippers feet first... and slowly.
Slashdot Mirror
Please provide your evidence to support the contention that "... the Democrats still remain a highly racist party."
Taxation isn't theft.
Taxation is the honoring of a contract, the social contract you are implicitly a signatory to as a citizen of a civilized society.
You gain the benefit of roads you can drive on, tap water that is available and safe to drink, house fires that get put out, an educated populace (you know, all those citizens who don't happen to be your son), and so on.
You pay for those benefits via your taxes.
If you don't wish to enjoy those benefits, you are free to go somewhere like Somalia, where you won't be burdened with them... and neither will you enjoy all those benefits.
Good luck with that.
A lot of vague marketing-speak in this article. "Deep learning"? The article basically talks about neural networks, just one of the techniques in machine learning. Neural networks were hyped for a long time, perhaps because of the catchy name.
You could have answered your own questions with a quick search, rather than assume that that which you are ignorant about is mere "marketing-speak."
deeplearning.net
Deep learning (Wikipedia)
Unsupervised Feature Learning and Deep Learning
Enough of our coddling ignorance.
Enough of our mealy-mouthed, passive acquiescence to the willful denial of reality.
Enough of our society shooting itself in the foot by watering down our science education, and our discussion of science in the public and political sphere by mixing in myth and pseudoscience.
There is no controversy. There is no debate. There is no real "other side" to this discussion.
Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most wel-developed, well-supported scientific theories we have. It as much settled science as science can get.
Evolution is a fact, in that it is the label for a phenomena we can directly and indirectly observe.
Evolutionary theory is not somehow inferior to fact. Indeed, it is in many ways superior to the level of fact, in that it is made up of facts, and is tested and confirmed, repeatedly, against reality.
If your religion claims that evolution isn't true, then, when it comes to this subject, your religion is wrong.
We should stop letting this nonsense slide. Our nation is competing against highly technological, committed, dedicated workers from other countries. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by mixing myth with our science.
The key difference is that a framework is a tool, whereas an App Store contains, or, more to the point, doesn't contain specific content.
If I use jQuery, that doesn't restrict what other code I write, or what other applications I use.
Interesting that most of the things you list are in Windows 7, and some of then in Vista.
I wouldn't know... my M$ machine is a laptop running XP that I use for work, and, up to now, I've rarely needed to even touch a Vista or Win 7 machine.
I'll probably be using Win 7 soon for a client's project... so I guess I'll get to see what it offers firsthand.
*shrug*
I find Unity to be reliable and useful... but there an awful lot of window managers out there, many of which can be configured to give some version of the functionality I get out of Unity.
But then, for me, Unity "just works". It's got rough edge or two here or there, but one of the reasons I've been sticking with Ubuntu is that it's got a large user base, and puts out frequent updates, and regular distribution upgrades, so the problems get fixed sooner or later.
The options you listed could give me some variant of the functionality I have now... of course, once I did a dist-upgrade, that functionality was there before me without me having to do anything special.
But, to each their own... we each have our own ideas as to what constitutes "useful", or "desirable" when it comes to our interfaces.
Can you give one real reason as to why you feel that it is the most usable, as compared to the gnome interface in 10.10? Old time users are not really immune to the "Ooh shiny!" effect.
You asked for one. There's four off the top of my head. I like the "Ooh shiny!" effect as much as the next geek, but I'm finding Unity to be very usable, and to help me be more productive.
Satisfied?
I've been using 11.04 with Unity since it became available... and it has become my favorite UI.
I've had zero stability problems, and have found it to be one of the most usable interfaces I've ever had... and I've been using Debian or Debian variants since '98.
Indeed... perhaps this is a case of "Low Slashdot ID envy" ?
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
Macro vs micro evolution is a distinction made for convenience, not to represent any special difference between the two. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales, and if one works, the other has to.
No, that's not necessarily true. That's an assumption, and one rather largely unproven. Thereby, it's not demonstrable and is therefore faith, not science.
That's the great thing about science -- using small things that we can observe to understand big things that we can't.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying that since we will probably never be able to watch a planet form up-close, we'll never understand how planet formation works. Who cares if we understand the basics (gravity, thermodynamics, radioactive decay, conservation of momentum), we haven't actually seen it so despite what we know, it must be magic.
For example, Newtonian Physics works great at the macro (every-day-object), slow-speed level. However, it substantially breaks down at the macro, high-speed and the micro levels. Einstein improved this with special relativity, though it still breaks down at the sub-micro levels, where Quantum mechanics fine tune from there using vastly different equations - different enough it cannot be reconciled (yet) with Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics. Yet, we wouldn't know that there is any break down of the Newtonian Physics without demonstrating it, the same goes for Einsteinian Physics.
Fact is, Macro Evolution has not been proven by any scientific means. Extrapolating it from Micro-Evolution is not valid science as it may not work or work any where near what we expect - which we won't know until we try to replicate it and succeed for fail.
Now for part of the kicker - Micro-Evolution has been shown to be temporary in many cases. Things "evolve" to meet a need, and as soon as the need is no longer they revert back. This has been shown time and time again - example: check out any of the examples used by Darwin to demonstrate Micro-Evolution; they all reverted after a time. All within his lifetime nonetheless.
Mutation, recombination, drift, selection... evolution.
We can observe the formation of new species in nature and the laboratory.
We have vast quantities of indirect evidence that the same mechanisms which produce speciation - the arising of new species - are the same mechanisms which, over longer timescales, lead to the development of new families, new orders, etc.
This claim that there is some sort of magical barrier which allows for so-called "microevolution" but prevents so-called "macroevolution" makes exactly as much sense as claiming that the forces of erosion can dissolve a sand castle, but that the "macroerosion" of mountains "has not been proven by any scientific means"... which is to say, no sense at all.
Never mind that science does not, ever, prove things true... it only disproves hypotheses, and those which are tested and not dis-proven are granted provisional validity, but always with the understanding that a new observation could result in the need to modify or discard old ideas which have passed past tests.
This pseudo-debate about "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" is nothing more than an element of that propaganda campaign known as "Intelligent Design", the attempt to smuggle Creationism into the pubic school classroom and the public discussion by disguising its true intent behind a layer of pseudoscience. It has absolutely no scientific legitimacy.
Why, exactly, should graduate programs be "cutthroat"? What is gained by doing things that way, as opposed to what is lost?
I've seen graduate programs which used students as the fodder for generating papers and industry funding, and if the student got an education out of the deal, well, that was nice. I have no respect for programs that don't make the development of their students a priority.
Having been a resident of California for 22 years now, I heartily agree.
The whole point of a representative democracy / republic (ideally, anyway) is that the average citizen doesn't have the time, experience, education, or inclination to do the research, discussion, and negotiation necessary to come up with the legislation needed by the complex world we live in, legislation that is meant to serve everyone's interests. So, we elect representatives to take that job on for us.
Here in California, we have people coming up with all sorts of Initiatives that get put before the voters directly, where it then becomes a matter of how well the Initiative is marketed, vs. how well the Initiative serves our interests. It can make California a frustrating State to live in.
The Chinese government has a tough problem... how do you transition a nation of over a billion people, mostly subsistence farmers, into the 21st century?
Unfortunately, one of their chosen means is to attempt to maintain an authoritarian regime. Do the actions of the CCP qualify as "... direct [the internet] in a positive way that benefits everyone in society" ? No, they don't... they seek to maintain power by maintaining order, which they define as maintaining a stranglehold on the expression of ideas. This is done for the benefit of the CCP, not the benefit of the nation.
I can't help but note that you started out as if you were claiming that the Chinese government was acting in such a way as to benefit the Chinese people... but then you describe the government as an elitist oligarchy based on factors as irrelevant to good governance as one's Mandarin accent. You then go on to reference the US debt as if that was somehow relevant to your assertions concerning the Chinese government.
The reader is left wondering what you think you point might be, and what you think constitutes support for that point.
You know, this is my greatest worry: the erosion of science education, the introduction of pseudo-science and myth presented as if they were science.
It's as if there is a segment of this country that isn't comfortable living in a modern, technologically-advanced country with a religiously neutral government, and instead want a theocracy with a technological level frozen at some point before 1950. But, rather than go to such a country, they seek to transform the United States into one.
How do we stop them from succeeding?
You offer us a false dichotomy: "let them starve" vs. "feed / clothe / house them for free"
How about "re-train them" ?
Besides, if you take the idea of automation far enough, you eventually make your way to a post-Scarcity economy: automation produces almost anything we desire, so the only limiting factors become raw materials and living space. Add in, say, asteroid mining, and the former ceases to be a consideration. The latter is a tougher nut to crack, but not, I think, insoluble.
If we have enough resources to support everyone via automation...then why not do so, and allow people to find motivations other than "Oh my God, oh my God, if I don't get enough dead president pictures, I will die of starvation / exposure / disease"?
Money is a necessary evil, but it is an evil.
Compared to electronics, neurons are large and slow. They're made of plain old matter.
So, tell me, what is this insurmountable barrier that prevents us from building a piece of hardware that does what brains do? We don't know how to do it now, you speak as if you have certain knowledge we'll never be able to.
So, what is this certain knowledge?
Earlier that year, the California State Supreme Court ruled that, based on the text of the State Constitution, there was no justification for barring same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Proposition 8 was put on the ballot, and passed by about 53% of the vote.
However, there are several questions as to whether or not that Proposition was valid, both from the standpoint of whether or not this particular change qualifies as an Amendment or a Revision (which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to get on the ballot, vs. a simple petition requirement as is the case for an Amendment), and there is a question as to whether or not the text of this Amendment is a valid change to the Constitution on legal grounds (in case you didn't know, not every change, via any language, is permissible).
No, I am not impaired. Thanks for asking. I've lived in California for about twenty years. How about you?
There's another fundamental flaw in this argument... the assumption that same-sex couples aren't raising children right this very minute.
They are.
Indeed, a lesbian couple can (via artificial insemination, or even natural insemination) give birth and raise children.
The "extending benefits to the largest group of people" argument works for, not against the legal recognition of same-sex couples via the institution of marriage. The "largest group" in this case is "couples", but you are trying to tell us that the "largest group" is actually "mixed-sex couples."
The logic of this escapes me.
There is a potential for same-sex couples to raise children. They're doing it right now.
As for not restricting marriage to couples who are fertile and intend to reproduce - which would be the logical and consistent application of your "incentivize the production of children" stance - we used to require blood tests before marriage, so requiring a fertility test shouldn't be a problem, particularly for males.
Nope, not buying it... it all sounds like just more attempts at giving bigotry a justification.
Check again... President-Elect Obama has spoken out against Proposition 8. And, given our current troubles, I hardly think the Obama Administration is going to make a Constitutional Amendment for this, of all things, a priority.
California voters can't vote something in which is un-Constitutional, no matter how many vote for it. We don't live in a pure democracy... a fact for which I am eternally grateful, as I don't want to end up being in the 49% of the population that can be held hostage by the other 51% in a pure democracy.
It remains to be seen whether Proposition 8 was Constitutionally valid.
The courts have no authority to change a state's constitution.
True, but that's not what they did. Instead, they ruled on a matter of Constitutionality, namely "Is a ban on same-sex marriage consistent with the State Constitution?"
They ruled that it wasn't... and it is precisely their task to rule on questions of this kind.
What motivates you... a concern for the well-being of this nation, and the world, or a desire for "payback"? Does the undeserved bad treatment you feel was directed at Bush justify undeserved bad treatment of Obama?
Just what do you value?
It's funny, though... Obama is quite possibly the biggest con man I've ever seen. I have great admiration for his skills at deceiving people, even as I'm disgusted with my fellow countrymen for being taken in by a swindler so easily. Truly an exemplary politician, even if he is a bad statesman.
Why would you be surprised? Weren't we taken by Clinton just as easily in the 90's?
Yeah, and look how bad the Clinton years were for this country...
Oh, wait...
Mr. Peabody, and his boy Sherman, used the Wayback Machine.
The 3DBB was used by Phineas J. Whoopee, when he was educating Tennessee Tuxedo and his walrus pal, Chumley.
Look at my ID. I am old... old as dirt! :)
I used to watch these, as well as "The World of Commander McBragg", and the ever-popular Underdog. "The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an Underdog super-vitamin energy pill." The people involved in the supposed live-action remake of Underdog should all be lowered into wood chippers feet first... and slowly.
No, no, no... you have to be more definitive about it...
Ahem: "Get of my lawn, ya damn kids!"
See? From the diaphragm... and helps if you have a cane to shake in the air for emphasis.