That it would be difficult to negotiate such an expansive treaty openly, then perhaps we shouldn't negotiate such an expansive treaty. Either limit the scope or the number of countries to where the process can actually be democratic.
Are you claiming that something utterly alien and highly complex can be learned immediately with no effort,
I am claiming that this is more or less the case on occasion. The extreme version of this would be having actual savant-level skills. I do have autism, and have on occasion demonstrated exceptional memory regarding certain things, and sometimes manage to understand systems with very little effort. Some things that are easy for others are very difficult for me. Some things that are easy for me are very difficult for me. Which category something falls into isn't heavily dependent upon whether or not I find something interesting. In the neurotypical population, you almost certainly have similar things, just typically a lot less to the extremes. That would seem to fit well within the definition of talent.
What about someone who understands something easily without having interest in it? There are tasks that I can perform at a high level with little training that I don't care about at all.
All the more reason that a woman should be so stupid as to get a degree in engineering.
Great job purposefully missing the point that everyone is young at some point, meaning that you theoretically had a chance already.
Maybe that is because job discrimination against young people is much less common? Still, I agree that nobody should be immediately excluded because of age, either old or young - prejudice is prejudice.
Yes, it's not as if children haven't been exploited for centuries and seniority wasn't one of the most common forms of hierarchy, with father metaphors in the Abrahamic religions and Confucianism explicitly deferring to ranked elders. For fuck's sake, at this point, a good share of millennials are basically branded debt slaves for life. Meanwhile, the AARP is one of the largest organizations in the country, and you can't even run for President until your are 35.
The majority of people spend their whole life as a single gender, but are never the same age twice. Also, there is no protection for young people against age discrimination, only old.
If that is true, please post evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, there is no viable evidence of the most common additives contributing in any meaningful way to dental health, but I could be wrong. If all you have is pointing out poor proofreading on my part, then please jump into a vat of hexafluorosilicic acid.
Others seem to be posting that there is no solid evidence that the form of fluoride in our water has shown any evidence of improving dental health. So, the cost of the latter would be zero.
I believe the only thing that has been scientifically tied to developing autism is prenatal hormone levels. If you want to know why autistics are disadvantaged in society, consider a world in which your sensory needs are ignored, the self-stimulation that is key to your mental health is discouraged, and decent chunks of the population would rather their children have contract horrible diseases than have a brain work like yours. Granted, in reality, this concern does nothing, but it's a horrible message to be sending to more than 1% of the population.
The reason that Americans say Brits have bad teeth is because of whiteness and straightness, neither of which has much to do with number of cavities. There, the mystery is solved. Also, there's the distinct possibility that Brits today care more about their dental health because it was so shitty, either in aesthetics or health, for so long.
Actually, it has nothing to do with cannabis use, just cannabis LAW. The availability of cannabis is probably about the same. The difference would be that the poor and minorities would be in jail instead of a university., and thus the selection of students is altered to reduce those demographics Whether that is because of being 'subhuman', just not having as good of a support system available, being culturally an outsider, or something else, is a different question. Let's take this one step at a time to maybe be passable in your trolling.
Your point would be relevant if there were any substantial number of people who don't get 'high' in some way or another. Yes, weed and alcohol alters your mind. So does caffeine, sugar, Ritalin, antidepressants, spicy food, chocolate, exercise, sex, music, meditation, and sleep. Which drugs and techniques in what quantities work best for you in what quantities is a matter of your own neurochemistry. For example, shrooms and LSD have shown a lot of potential in things like cluster headaches, PTSD, and ironically enough, addiction. If such an enormous burden was removed from your life, wouldn't you feel like you were thinking on a different level? Nobody's perfect, and you might even gain a great deal of insight from being in different states of mind. Not because these states are wholly better than straight edge teetotaling, but because they allow you a different mode of thought, diversifying your perspective somewhat.
Evolution is the change of a population of organisms over time. That doesn't always mean new traits, and new traits are in fact the exception to the norm. The majority of evolution by natural selection is the shifting of the makeup of traits.
It's not as if there is any shortage of purposes that could be more well defined than these projects, and would likely yield more useful results. Even a literal interpretation of a practical flying car would probably lead to more productive research. Maglev has enough conceptual overlap to be able to see research that benefits both, and flying cars should obviously be self-driving. Self driving vehicles and maglev trains could increase the standard of living and lower the costs of travel and distribution.
Or, we could just throw similar amounts of money at general purpose research, some of which might also be useful in military applications. Call it the "War on not Having Flying Cars"
The NSA likely has far more of a need for a reality check. The omniprescence of human stupidity alone means that nobody should have the kind of power that they have, especially without serious objective external oversight and a robust system of protections for whistleblowers, including employment within government agencies or with clients. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to leave the country. They should get a bonus and a promotion.
You completely missed the point. I'm saying that if even the simplest video codecs involve hundreds of patents, the bar for getting a patent is clearly far too low. Patent pools can reduce the symptoms, but it doesn't address the underlying problem of "HOLY MOTHER OF FUCK, EVEN A CHIMP COULD GET A PATENT!"
That MPEG2 had hundreds of patents would suggest that there is a problem. That makes it sound as if basically every step had at least one patent, possibly more. If that's the case, then meaningful competition is going to be impossible.
No, I'm 'relativizing' them to statistical probability, both globally and within the US. Within both realms, ISIS and Ebola are not threats. If your village is taken over by ISIS or has a severe ebola outbreak, the stats become a bit different, but that's the exception, not the rule. Also, a good share of the groups fighting ISIS end up causing similar death tolls.
I'm not downplaying their struggles at all. I'm just normalizing them against global threats, and also against the threat of Americans in particular (since we are discussing a US agency, and that agency is nominally focused on US threats). You. however, seem to be focusing entirely upon acute threats. That's actually the easy stuff to focus on, but it often has much less of an impact than less exciting threats. You can empathize with someone without agreeing with their conclusions. That's why, while 9/11 was an awful tragedy, it wasn't worth passing the PATRIOT Act for, especially since it didn't really result in us being safe. I've seen claims that the decrease in flying due to the TSA's security theater has actually caused more deaths than the terrorism it's supposed to fight because people opt for car travel instead, and cars are more dangerous than planes.
Look, it's an easy mistake to make. The human brain is awful at scale, and thinking on scale feels dirty to us. But we've got to at least try to be rational if we want to make sensible decisions.
Malaria kills a lot more people than Ebola, even in West Africa. Ebola is all kinds of nasty, but it's not nearly as contagious. ISIS is a big mess as well, but their scale is relatively small, and they exist because we arm rebels and ask questions later. Look, I realize that these things are scary as hell to our brains. Our brains have a lot of difficulty with grasping relative risks on scales beyond the scope of a tribe. However, that doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that bathtubs kill more people than terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
That it would be difficult to negotiate such an expansive treaty openly, then perhaps we shouldn't negotiate such an expansive treaty. Either limit the scope or the number of countries to where the process can actually be democratic.
I am claiming that this is more or less the case on occasion. The extreme version of this would be having actual savant-level skills. I do have autism, and have on occasion demonstrated exceptional memory regarding certain things, and sometimes manage to understand systems with very little effort. Some things that are easy for others are very difficult for me. Some things that are easy for me are very difficult for me. Which category something falls into isn't heavily dependent upon whether or not I find something interesting. In the neurotypical population, you almost certainly have similar things, just typically a lot less to the extremes. That would seem to fit well within the definition of talent.
What about someone who understands something easily without having interest in it? There are tasks that I can perform at a high level with little training that I don't care about at all.
By definition, 10. Perhaps being able to figure things like that out is what separates 10x programmers.
Great job purposefully missing the point that everyone is young at some point, meaning that you theoretically had a chance already.
Yes, it's not as if children haven't been exploited for centuries and seniority wasn't one of the most common forms of hierarchy, with father metaphors in the Abrahamic religions and Confucianism explicitly deferring to ranked elders. For fuck's sake, at this point, a good share of millennials are basically branded debt slaves for life. Meanwhile, the AARP is one of the largest organizations in the country, and you can't even run for President until your are 35.
The majority of people spend their whole life as a single gender, but are never the same age twice. Also, there is no protection for young people against age discrimination, only old.
If half of the fluorine is natural, wouldn't we get roughly the same health benefits if people drank about twice as much water?
If that is true, please post evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, there is no viable evidence of the most common additives contributing in any meaningful way to dental health, but I could be wrong. If all you have is pointing out poor proofreading on my part, then please jump into a vat of hexafluorosilicic acid.
Others seem to be posting that there is no solid evidence that the form of fluoride in our water has shown any evidence of improving dental health. So, the cost of the latter would be zero.
I believe the only thing that has been scientifically tied to developing autism is prenatal hormone levels. If you want to know why autistics are disadvantaged in society, consider a world in which your sensory needs are ignored, the self-stimulation that is key to your mental health is discouraged, and decent chunks of the population would rather their children have contract horrible diseases than have a brain work like yours. Granted, in reality, this concern does nothing, but it's a horrible message to be sending to more than 1% of the population.
The reason that Americans say Brits have bad teeth is because of whiteness and straightness, neither of which has much to do with number of cavities. There, the mystery is solved. Also, there's the distinct possibility that Brits today care more about their dental health because it was so shitty, either in aesthetics or health, for so long.
Actually, it has nothing to do with cannabis use, just cannabis LAW. The availability of cannabis is probably about the same. The difference would be that the poor and minorities would be in jail instead of a university., and thus the selection of students is altered to reduce those demographics Whether that is because of being 'subhuman', just not having as good of a support system available, being culturally an outsider, or something else, is a different question. Let's take this one step at a time to maybe be passable in your trolling.
Your point would be relevant if there were any substantial number of people who don't get 'high' in some way or another. Yes, weed and alcohol alters your mind. So does caffeine, sugar, Ritalin, antidepressants, spicy food, chocolate, exercise, sex, music, meditation, and sleep. Which drugs and techniques in what quantities work best for you in what quantities is a matter of your own neurochemistry. For example, shrooms and LSD have shown a lot of potential in things like cluster headaches, PTSD, and ironically enough, addiction. If such an enormous burden was removed from your life, wouldn't you feel like you were thinking on a different level? Nobody's perfect, and you might even gain a great deal of insight from being in different states of mind. Not because these states are wholly better than straight edge teetotaling, but because they allow you a different mode of thought, diversifying your perspective somewhat.
Evolution is the change of a population of organisms over time. That doesn't always mean new traits, and new traits are in fact the exception to the norm. The majority of evolution by natural selection is the shifting of the makeup of traits.
It's not as if there is any shortage of purposes that could be more well defined than these projects, and would likely yield more useful results. Even a literal interpretation of a practical flying car would probably lead to more productive research. Maglev has enough conceptual overlap to be able to see research that benefits both, and flying cars should obviously be self-driving. Self driving vehicles and maglev trains could increase the standard of living and lower the costs of travel and distribution.
Or, we could just throw similar amounts of money at general purpose research, some of which might also be useful in military applications. Call it the "War on not Having Flying Cars"
What if I don't give a shit about being a world power? It doesn't do anything for me.
The NSA likely has far more of a need for a reality check. The omniprescence of human stupidity alone means that nobody should have the kind of power that they have, especially without serious objective external oversight and a robust system of protections for whistleblowers, including employment within government agencies or with clients. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to leave the country. They should get a bonus and a promotion.
Damn that Snowden and his betrayal of the trust of an agency whose modus operandi is betraying trust.
So, he's betraying the UK? That's a proud American tradition.
You completely missed the point. I'm saying that if even the simplest video codecs involve hundreds of patents, the bar for getting a patent is clearly far too low. Patent pools can reduce the symptoms, but it doesn't address the underlying problem of "HOLY MOTHER OF FUCK, EVEN A CHIMP COULD GET A PATENT!"
That MPEG2 had hundreds of patents would suggest that there is a problem. That makes it sound as if basically every step had at least one patent, possibly more. If that's the case, then meaningful competition is going to be impossible.
No, I'm 'relativizing' them to statistical probability, both globally and within the US. Within both realms, ISIS and Ebola are not threats. If your village is taken over by ISIS or has a severe ebola outbreak, the stats become a bit different, but that's the exception, not the rule. Also, a good share of the groups fighting ISIS end up causing similar death tolls.
I'm not downplaying their struggles at all. I'm just normalizing them against global threats, and also against the threat of Americans in particular (since we are discussing a US agency, and that agency is nominally focused on US threats). You. however, seem to be focusing entirely upon acute threats. That's actually the easy stuff to focus on, but it often has much less of an impact than less exciting threats. You can empathize with someone without agreeing with their conclusions. That's why, while 9/11 was an awful tragedy, it wasn't worth passing the PATRIOT Act for, especially since it didn't really result in us being safe. I've seen claims that the decrease in flying due to the TSA's security theater has actually caused more deaths than the terrorism it's supposed to fight because people opt for car travel instead, and cars are more dangerous than planes.
Look, it's an easy mistake to make. The human brain is awful at scale, and thinking on scale feels dirty to us. But we've got to at least try to be rational if we want to make sensible decisions.
Malaria kills a lot more people than Ebola, even in West Africa. Ebola is all kinds of nasty, but it's not nearly as contagious. ISIS is a big mess as well, but their scale is relatively small, and they exist because we arm rebels and ask questions later. Look, I realize that these things are scary as hell to our brains. Our brains have a lot of difficulty with grasping relative risks on scales beyond the scope of a tribe. However, that doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that bathtubs kill more people than terrorists.