The reality is a bit more complicated, as too much aggression will lead to you biting off more than you can chew. Evolution would tend to select for moderate aggressiveness.
You are making a lot of assumptions. One is that there is a reason to compete, another is that all other things will be anything close to equal. If they have been space-faring for a thousand years longer than us, then they are likely going to be 1000 years more advanced. In unarmed combat, basically anything with overlapping ranges for weight could beat a human handily.
Yes, because there's no way that a company that makes portable electronics would have an interest in someone knowledgeable about batteries unless they were making cars...
Wow....a coherent analogy that wasn't about cars on/.
I am shocked. Also, the "frantic hand-job" part was quite a humorous yet accurate metaphor as well. Are you sure you arnn't from an alternate reality or something?
Yet intellectual property rights are intended in part to spur the very innovation on which climate mitigation depends.
Is anybody even pretending that patents exist anymore for anything other than lining corporate and lawyer pockets? Just tell them to piss off because the planet is more important.
I think it's more to do with the inevitability of the French=Surrender Monkeys meme. Personally, I think this makes it all the more evidence that this is a government practice that we need to eliminate. Those behind this malware are criminals and we should see them as such.
Basically, we have very strong reasons to believe this is the case, but we don't have enough evidence yet to say conclusively that they are responsible. The researchers are likely saying that they clearly did it, but backing off just a bit to not be at risk of getting sued.
HIV is infectious and cancer is not (HPV is though).. HIV has only one cause, while cancer takes countless forms with countless causes, and factors that might decrease the risk of one may increase the risk of another. Fighting cancer is like fighting death.
If the public is demanding an answer, give them the answer. Encryption keeps our data safe. That's the point of encryption. It is important.to both our financial system and democracy, and [insert scary scenario] is a lesser concern than those.
I think you are throwing the word 'toxic' around a bit too lightly. It's important to remember that a lot of the things widely considered facts about alcohol today were basically just propaganda based on loose science at best (largely using people who considered beer whiskey and wine to be food groups). Animals have been consuming alcohol for a very long time, and humans have an exceptional number of adaptations that made us better at drinking alcohol, relative to our mass, than most other creatures. Capsaicin is a chemical certain plants evolved that irritates mammal tissue but doesn't bother birds, which results in more intact seeds traveling further distances. However, humans have learned to tolerate the pain and it has shown a few health benefits. We are complicated creatures, and to pretend that we aren't is almost certainly going to be disastrous.
The best methods of learning are likely mostly based in experience, especially for actions that are irrational or lacking an obvious reason. However, I think there is value in diagnosis, as understanding HOW you differ in thinking from other people can help to understand those differences. I know personally that I can have difficulty mastering a skill before I know how that skill actually works. I would think advances in brain theory would probably also be helpful.
A more accurate description might be that you are more likely to get laid if you are within a standard deviation of intelligence from your target audience.
The appropriate way of dealing with homosexuals is to let them be themselves and to treat them equally. If your suggestion to homosexuals over the difficulties they have in society is to act like a heterosexual, then you are (correctly) seen as a bigoted asshole for doing so. However, the manner in which autism is often dealt with is to train them to resemble neurotypicals to the extent that they are not ostracized as much. What it looks like this AC is suggesting is that society actually allow autistic people to be autistic people instead of trying to shoehorn them into being like neurotypicals.
Perhaps a key part of the problem is that neurotypicals are the ones that are 'pieces of shit' that don't develop the skills to work with people who think in a manner different than their own. If they bothered to work on their ability to empathize and make themselves understood better, the lives of autistics could probably be a great deal better, in addition to society being able to benefit from more productive citizens and less citizens who are a burden.
Target is a good example. Yes, the people that broke into the system and acquired the CC numbers were malicious actors, but Target and their POS providers were negligent in their security practices, and their customers were harmed by said negligence. You want the story to be a dead simple narrative because it allows you to paint every party in a very particular light, but dead simple narratives are almost universally useless. Negligence or incompetence also tends to cause more damage than malice, so they should be a higher priority.
I'm not seeing a claim that they shouldn't be any kind of punishment for misdeeds, but that negligence shouldn't be overlooked. If instead of doubling down on making an example of 'hackers' even when their deeds fit within the range of 'mischief', they threw an ounce of culpability on those tasked with securing this infrastructure, we'd all be better off.
You're not really contradicting me here. I'm not saying that beer goggles don't exist. I'm saying that their effects are usually greatly exaggerated, and that the IDEA of beer goggles is often used as an excuse to avoid social judgment for actions that would draw criticism. In common parlance, beer goggles appear to, in practice, be mostly an excuse to go home with a 'moped.'
There's actually some math to the beer goggle effect, and the beer itself usually isn't the biggest factor. I would say that much of what is attributed to the 'Beer Goggle effect' is really just using booze as a cover for having low standards as opposed to actually having inhibitions.
I'm aware of xylitol, but it seems to have largely gone out of vogue, at least with the locally available brands. Even stuff like JuicyFruit that has actual sugar in it adds aspartame to make the flavor last longer in exchange for making the flavor awful.
The problem seems to be that sweetness without calories confuses the part of the brain that puts together sweetness and calories, resulting in your brain not knowing when it's had enough.
The available data seems to suggest that moderate alcohol usage is healthier than abstaining completely. If someone is saying that something is inherently good or bad for you, they are almost certainly a misinformed idiot. What is and isn't good for your health is very much contextual. Rat poison (warfarin) has medical usage as an anti-coagulant, but it obviously isn't something for a typical person to be downing on a Tuesday afternoon. Alcohol has a number of effects. Depending on the amount and your own personal body chemistry, drinking an alcoholic beverage can either help or hurt your health.
As a general rule to be applied to everyone, the best advice regarding alcohol would probably be to listen to your body. If you feel better when you drink a certain amount of alcohol through the week, then it's probably okay for you to keep it up. If you feel worse when you drink a certain amount of alcohol through the week, then you should probably reduce or stop your drinking.
Slashdot Mirror
The reality is a bit more complicated, as too much aggression will lead to you biting off more than you can chew. Evolution would tend to select for moderate aggressiveness.
You are making a lot of assumptions. One is that there is a reason to compete, another is that all other things will be anything close to equal. If they have been space-faring for a thousand years longer than us, then they are likely going to be 1000 years more advanced. In unarmed combat, basically anything with overlapping ranges for weight could beat a human handily.
Yes, because there's no way that a company that makes portable electronics would have an interest in someone knowledgeable about batteries unless they were making cars...
Wow....a coherent analogy that wasn't about cars on /.
I am shocked. Also, the "frantic hand-job" part was quite a humorous yet accurate metaphor as well. Are you sure you arnn't from an alternate reality or something?
The issue is that if those rights are ignored, trade might be restricted, and not having trade with large chunks of the world can be devastating.
Is anybody even pretending that patents exist anymore for anything other than lining corporate and lawyer pockets? Just tell them to piss off because the planet is more important.
Hard work is basically a religion to large swaths of the US.
I think it's more to do with the inevitability of the French=Surrender Monkeys meme. Personally, I think this makes it all the more evidence that this is a government practice that we need to eliminate. Those behind this malware are criminals and we should see them as such.
Basically, we have very strong reasons to believe this is the case, but we don't have enough evidence yet to say conclusively that they are responsible. The researchers are likely saying that they clearly did it, but backing off just a bit to not be at risk of getting sued.
HIV is infectious and cancer is not (HPV is though).. HIV has only one cause, while cancer takes countless forms with countless causes, and factors that might decrease the risk of one may increase the risk of another. Fighting cancer is like fighting death.
If the public is demanding an answer, give them the answer. Encryption keeps our data safe. That's the point of encryption. It is important.to both our financial system and democracy, and [insert scary scenario] is a lesser concern than those.
Then that unicorn needs to be studied. It's going faster than any land mammal while standing. That's incredible enough to confuse most drivers.
I think you are throwing the word 'toxic' around a bit too lightly. It's important to remember that a lot of the things widely considered facts about alcohol today were basically just propaganda based on loose science at best (largely using people who considered beer whiskey and wine to be food groups). Animals have been consuming alcohol for a very long time, and humans have an exceptional number of adaptations that made us better at drinking alcohol, relative to our mass, than most other creatures. Capsaicin is a chemical certain plants evolved that irritates mammal tissue but doesn't bother birds, which results in more intact seeds traveling further distances. However, humans have learned to tolerate the pain and it has shown a few health benefits. We are complicated creatures, and to pretend that we aren't is almost certainly going to be disastrous.
The best methods of learning are likely mostly based in experience, especially for actions that are irrational or lacking an obvious reason. However, I think there is value in diagnosis, as understanding HOW you differ in thinking from other people can help to understand those differences. I know personally that I can have difficulty mastering a skill before I know how that skill actually works. I would think advances in brain theory would probably also be helpful.
A more accurate description might be that you are more likely to get laid if you are within a standard deviation of intelligence from your target audience.
The appropriate way of dealing with homosexuals is to let them be themselves and to treat them equally. If your suggestion to homosexuals over the difficulties they have in society is to act like a heterosexual, then you are (correctly) seen as a bigoted asshole for doing so. However, the manner in which autism is often dealt with is to train them to resemble neurotypicals to the extent that they are not ostracized as much. What it looks like this AC is suggesting is that society actually allow autistic people to be autistic people instead of trying to shoehorn them into being like neurotypicals.
Perhaps a key part of the problem is that neurotypicals are the ones that are 'pieces of shit' that don't develop the skills to work with people who think in a manner different than their own. If they bothered to work on their ability to empathize and make themselves understood better, the lives of autistics could probably be a great deal better, in addition to society being able to benefit from more productive citizens and less citizens who are a burden.
Target is a good example. Yes, the people that broke into the system and acquired the CC numbers were malicious actors, but Target and their POS providers were negligent in their security practices, and their customers were harmed by said negligence. You want the story to be a dead simple narrative because it allows you to paint every party in a very particular light, but dead simple narratives are almost universally useless. Negligence or incompetence also tends to cause more damage than malice, so they should be a higher priority.
You could, however, use a number of techniques to block a 4G connection from leaving your house.
I'm not seeing a claim that they shouldn't be any kind of punishment for misdeeds, but that negligence shouldn't be overlooked. If instead of doubling down on making an example of 'hackers' even when their deeds fit within the range of 'mischief', they threw an ounce of culpability on those tasked with securing this infrastructure, we'd all be better off.
You're not really contradicting me here. I'm not saying that beer goggles don't exist. I'm saying that their effects are usually greatly exaggerated, and that the IDEA of beer goggles is often used as an excuse to avoid social judgment for actions that would draw criticism. In common parlance, beer goggles appear to, in practice, be mostly an excuse to go home with a 'moped.'
There's actually some math to the beer goggle effect, and the beer itself usually isn't the biggest factor. I would say that much of what is attributed to the 'Beer Goggle effect' is really just using booze as a cover for having low standards as opposed to actually having inhibitions.
I'm aware of xylitol, but it seems to have largely gone out of vogue, at least with the locally available brands. Even stuff like JuicyFruit that has actual sugar in it adds aspartame to make the flavor last longer in exchange for making the flavor awful.
The problem seems to be that sweetness without calories confuses the part of the brain that puts together sweetness and calories, resulting in your brain not knowing when it's had enough.
The available data seems to suggest that moderate alcohol usage is healthier than abstaining completely. If someone is saying that something is inherently good or bad for you, they are almost certainly a misinformed idiot. What is and isn't good for your health is very much contextual. Rat poison (warfarin) has medical usage as an anti-coagulant, but it obviously isn't something for a typical person to be downing on a Tuesday afternoon. Alcohol has a number of effects. Depending on the amount and your own personal body chemistry, drinking an alcoholic beverage can either help or hurt your health.
As a general rule to be applied to everyone, the best advice regarding alcohol would probably be to listen to your body. If you feel better when you drink a certain amount of alcohol through the week, then it's probably okay for you to keep it up. If you feel worse when you drink a certain amount of alcohol through the week, then you should probably reduce or stop your drinking.