Problem: If a woman challenges on salary then she doesn't get the job because evaluators decide she's too combative. The bias of too many interviewers cuts off the woman's ability to negotiate higher pay. The perception of a good man as willing to fight for his position and of a good woman as being accommodating to her environment means that a very wise woman who wants a job may very well decide she cannot afford to argue. And that is discrimination.
A Dilbert cartoon sometime in the late 1990s talked about how the.com boom used to be driven by companies that sought the IPO, but now the real goal was just to be bought by Microsoft.
I think this pattern has been around a loooooong time.
No, actually, that's a tenet of a specific branch of Islam, not the religion as a whole. Yes, it is mentioned in the Koran, but using that as the basis for the ban would be akin to suggesting that all Jews want to implement the Jewish dietary laws across the USA or that all Christians favor stoning for adultery. As with all religions, not all Muslims are such fundamentalists.
You're only partially right. His call was for a ban from those from specific countries, and that means there's nearly 100% overlap between "Muslim" and "Arab", enough to properly put this on the list as "racist" in my book.
But let's grant that technicality to you. It is still negatively stereotyping an entire group of people by the actions of a few, so it is hardly a redeeming value.
More people per state. Not more people. Far more people voted for Clinton, they just weren't well distributed. It's important to remember that when making statements about the country's reaction to our new president.
But did you vote for him in the general election? That's the problem most of us on the left have -- your guy lost in the primary, but most Republicans didn't switch to Clinton. If Romney or Jeb were the nominee, we on the left would be unhappy, but not panicked. Today's inaugural included a call for a loyalty pledge, and it was part of a broader theme that is quite literally terrifying. This isn't someone who is just putting in place different economic policies than I want or someone who disagrees with me on a given treaty or even whether we should go to war or not. Instead, Trump gave this speech... one that claims the richest nation on Earth with the most powerful military is somehow in terrible shape, one that announces that we are going to put ourselves first instead of trying to help the world come together as one. We've never been a humble nation, but we've tried to get beyond the arrogance of the 1950s where we thought we were better than everyone else. We tried desperately NOT to exercise extreme power when we became the only superpower after USSR collapsed. That policy went away today in favor of the USA trying to get the best in every situation instead of sharing our wealth with the rest of the world.
"From this moment on, it's going to be America First." "We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world -- but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first." "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other." -- President Trump, Inaugural Address
Trump racism: Let's start with 1973 charges of discrimination in housing, then work forward to 2016 where he said the Central Park Five should go to jail DESPITE DNA evidence exonerating them, with all sorts of gems along the way. http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/... Oh... and then there's the famous quote about Mexicans. And suggesting a blanket ban on Muslims as a category.
Advocating for war crimes: March 2016, defending ordering the US military to commit war crimes of killing non-combatants that are family members of those in combat http://www.washingtontimes.com... Also advocates for waterboarding and worse in several interviews and speeches.
You are correct. There is a section of the document that reads like they created some, but the original paper makes it clear, this was all in simulation. I withdraw my comment.
"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"
"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"
They created a bit of the new graphene structure -- not much, but enough to measure the properties of it. Then they did more testing of it in simulation.
But what they discovered along the way is that the new geometry was a useful geometry for a wide range of substances, so they were able to test the geometric structural properties using plastic.
The MIT link makes it very clear that they actually created this new structure in actual graphene. They did not create much of it, but enough to get its structural properties, then they did the rest of the work in simulation. They go on to say that the new configuration is a stronger 3D configuration for many materials, which is why they were able to do additional large scale work on the *geometry* using plastic.
https://news.mit.edu/2017/3-d-...
In short, yes, they actually produced the new structure, and they actually did do new work.
Plausible doesn't mean proof. With no verifiability of the story, it should be treated as Internet spam. CITATION NEEDED.
If you need anonymity, use a public proxy like a known journalist who can vet your story and then post for you.
Yes, that's a lot of work to go through for a slashdot post, but without it, it's just Internet noise. You might as well not even post.
In the USA, most of our laws are enforced through civil court action -- laws like workers rights give the worker the right to sue if the law isn't followed. We don't have a police force going around investigating most of our civil regulations. The workers bringing a lawsuit like this is how the system is *designed* to work. It generally provides the right balance... rather than the government injecting itself into all our economic and social relationships, the people involved are free to negotiate a system that works for them and only appeal to the government when no reasonable accord can be reached or when one side just goes too far. It is the social equivalent of kids yelling for the parents to come resolve things... you don't want the government to be constantly monitoring because they have to enforce all the rules when they get involved ("fine... everyone go to your rooms") and can disrupt a lot of what is working.
Look at the history of most of the world's failed republics and see how they failed. Based on the history of Italy, Spain, a whole lot of South and Central America, and more than one African republic, it's not an unreasonable position to see Trump as a major threat. The historical analogues are why so many of us were concerned about his rise during the campaign... he casts doubt on basic facts to build up conspiracy theories, he asserts truth rather than proving it, and he takes criticism poorly. He is a propaganda machine for the 21st century. We should be quite concerned about Trump.
But more, we should be concerned about Trump's successor. Trump is a force that can bend all the bars even while being a good guy. But those bars stay bent for the next person behind him.
They did sit on it for 3 months. Check the filing dates. First contact in August, release in December. Sept, Oct, Nov are the 3 months. There's a post up above from user OzPeter that extracted all the dates and laid them out in order.
We aren't sure of that. Maybe if he releases his tax reports, we can find that out. Until then, we should assume he's probably far below that in the millionaire range because of his tendency to exaggerate things.
Yeah, but the whole point is to PREVENT anyone from doing something "Flash like". We don't want programmable ads -- that's untrusted code. If you can't communicate your ad with a static image, a video, and a "click for more info" link, you need a better ad dept... if your product is so bad that the only way you can get people to buy it is with invasive advertising, maybe the world is better off without your doohickey.
Ok, that makes sense... but why do you need the arb clause instead of just going to small claims court or civil court? I understand wanting the arb clause, but mandating it when someone else doesn't want to give up their rights to court review is something that I generally oppose in other contexts, so I'm curious why it matters so much in your context.
It seems to me that such clauses are no longer binding. A slow benchmark is a negative review, and taking away the software if you publish would be a form of retaliation.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem: If a woman challenges on salary then she doesn't get the job because evaluators decide she's too combative. The bias of too many interviewers cuts off the woman's ability to negotiate higher pay. The perception of a good man as willing to fight for his position and of a good woman as being accommodating to her environment means that a very wise woman who wants a job may very well decide she cannot afford to argue. And that is discrimination.
Or your girlfriend herself. Or your boyfriend.
A Dilbert cartoon sometime in the late 1990s talked about how the .com boom used to be driven by companies that sought the IPO, but now the real goal was just to be bought by Microsoft.
I think this pattern has been around a loooooong time.
No, actually, that's a tenet of a specific branch of Islam, not the religion as a whole. Yes, it is mentioned in the Koran, but using that as the basis for the ban would be akin to suggesting that all Jews want to implement the Jewish dietary laws across the USA or that all Christians favor stoning for adultery. As with all religions, not all Muslims are such fundamentalists.
You're only partially right. His call was for a ban from those from specific countries, and that means there's nearly 100% overlap between "Muslim" and "Arab", enough to properly put this on the list as "racist" in my book. But let's grant that technicality to you. It is still negatively stereotyping an entire group of people by the actions of a few, so it is hardly a redeeming value.
More people per state. Not more people. Far more people voted for Clinton, they just weren't well distributed. It's important to remember that when making statements about the country's reaction to our new president.
But did you vote for him in the general election? That's the problem most of us on the left have -- your guy lost in the primary, but most Republicans didn't switch to Clinton. If Romney or Jeb were the nominee, we on the left would be unhappy, but not panicked. Today's inaugural included a call for a loyalty pledge, and it was part of a broader theme that is quite literally terrifying. This isn't someone who is just putting in place different economic policies than I want or someone who disagrees with me on a given treaty or even whether we should go to war or not. Instead, Trump gave this speech... one that claims the richest nation on Earth with the most powerful military is somehow in terrible shape, one that announces that we are going to put ourselves first instead of trying to help the world come together as one. We've never been a humble nation, but we've tried to get beyond the arrogance of the 1950s where we thought we were better than everyone else. We tried desperately NOT to exercise extreme power when we became the only superpower after USSR collapsed. That policy went away today in favor of the USA trying to get the best in every situation instead of sharing our wealth with the rest of the world.
"From this moment on, it's going to be America First." "We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world -- but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first." "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other." -- President Trump, Inaugural Address
Mocking the diabled: Video, 45 seconds long: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2...
Trump racism: Let's start with 1973 charges of discrimination in housing, then work forward to 2016 where he said the Central Park Five should go to jail DESPITE DNA evidence exonerating them, with all sorts of gems along the way. http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/... Oh... and then there's the famous quote about Mexicans. And suggesting a blanket ban on Muslims as a category.
Advocating for war crimes: March 2016, defending ordering the US military to commit war crimes of killing non-combatants that are family members of those in combat http://www.washingtontimes.com... Also advocates for waterboarding and worse in several interviews and speeches.
Regarding treatment of women: Ah, the famous "grab them by the pussy" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://rationallythinkingoutlo...
@xevioso It's a good quote, but you should provide attribution.
Quoting from the original paper ( http://advances.sciencemag.org... ):
"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"
Quoting from the original paper ( http://advances.sciencemag.org... ):
"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"
They created a bit of the new graphene structure -- not much, but enough to measure the properties of it. Then they did more testing of it in simulation. But what they discovered along the way is that the new geometry was a useful geometry for a wide range of substances, so they were able to test the geometric structural properties using plastic.
The MIT link makes it very clear that they actually created this new structure in actual graphene. They did not create much of it, but enough to get its structural properties, then they did the rest of the work in simulation. They go on to say that the new configuration is a stronger 3D configuration for many materials, which is why they were able to do additional large scale work on the *geometry* using plastic. https://news.mit.edu/2017/3-d-... In short, yes, they actually produced the new structure, and they actually did do new work.
Plausible doesn't mean proof. With no verifiability of the story, it should be treated as Internet spam. CITATION NEEDED. If you need anonymity, use a public proxy like a known journalist who can vet your story and then post for you. Yes, that's a lot of work to go through for a slashdot post, but without it, it's just Internet noise. You might as well not even post.
Here's the citation: http://www.politifact.com/cali... Yes, California has the 6th largest economy in the world.
In the USA, most of our laws are enforced through civil court action -- laws like workers rights give the worker the right to sue if the law isn't followed. We don't have a police force going around investigating most of our civil regulations. The workers bringing a lawsuit like this is how the system is *designed* to work. It generally provides the right balance... rather than the government injecting itself into all our economic and social relationships, the people involved are free to negotiate a system that works for them and only appeal to the government when no reasonable accord can be reached or when one side just goes too far. It is the social equivalent of kids yelling for the parents to come resolve things... you don't want the government to be constantly monitoring because they have to enforce all the rules when they get involved ("fine... everyone go to your rooms") and can disrupt a lot of what is working.
Look at the history of most of the world's failed republics and see how they failed. Based on the history of Italy, Spain, a whole lot of South and Central America, and more than one African republic, it's not an unreasonable position to see Trump as a major threat. The historical analogues are why so many of us were concerned about his rise during the campaign... he casts doubt on basic facts to build up conspiracy theories, he asserts truth rather than proving it, and he takes criticism poorly. He is a propaganda machine for the 21st century. We should be quite concerned about Trump. But more, we should be concerned about Trump's successor. Trump is a force that can bend all the bars even while being a good guy. But those bars stay bent for the next person behind him.
They did sit on it for 3 months. Check the filing dates. First contact in August, release in December. Sept, Oct, Nov are the 3 months. There's a post up above from user OzPeter that extracted all the dates and laid them out in order.
That's a reasonable point. But Flash goes far beyond that.
I noticed the Trump is a billionaire, too.
We aren't sure of that. Maybe if he releases his tax reports, we can find that out. Until then, we should assume he's probably far below that in the millionaire range because of his tendency to exaggerate things.
Yeah, but the whole point is to PREVENT anyone from doing something "Flash like". We don't want programmable ads -- that's untrusted code. If you can't communicate your ad with a static image, a video, and a "click for more info" link, you need a better ad dept... if your product is so bad that the only way you can get people to buy it is with invasive advertising, maybe the world is better off without your doohickey.
fake (news show)
NOT a
(fake news) show
Big difference.
Thank you!
Ok, that makes sense... but why do you need the arb clause instead of just going to small claims court or civil court? I understand wanting the arb clause, but mandating it when someone else doesn't want to give up their rights to court review is something that I generally oppose in other contexts, so I'm curious why it matters so much in your context.
It seems to me that such clauses are no longer binding. A slow benchmark is a negative review, and taking away the software if you publish would be a form of retaliation.