Many times I could have used a disintegrator that could turn a plus-sized human body into energy, but I guess I'd settle for an electric shocker which only incapacitates.
Don't worry. At 70 degrees Celsius all water from the gutter will just evaporate and your air conditioner will catch fire. But you'll be too busy being boiled like an egg to care about the noise.
From TFA:
Exposing the SMP to heat above 60 to 70 degrees Celsius causes the material to become flexible enough to undergo geometric deformations. The material then cools into its new rigid form. Apply another round of heat, and it will return to its original memory state.
While only 1.7% of Force users have reported any type of skin irritation, we care about every one of our customers. On behalf of the entire Fitbit team, I want to apologize to anyone affected.... Independent test results have not found any issues with the battery or electrical systems. Test results show that users are likely experiencing allergic contact dermatitis. All Force materials are commonly used in consumer products. However, some users may be reacting to the nickel present in the surgical grade stainless steel used in the device. Other users are likely experiencing an allergic reaction to the materials used in the strap or the adhesives used to assemble the product.
And that's just one of them, that Fitbit ran into. Apple may be running into that same one, AND MORE, once people start using their watch instead of the Fitbit or using it like the Fitbit.
For one, Fitbit's battery lasts a week. Tim Cook suggested charging Apple Watch over night. With all those sensors, "Taptic" actuators, color screens... I have a feeling that's a rather optimistic estimate. They didn't mention the battery for a reason.
Also, I have a feeling that the "Digital Crown" won't last. At least for people trying to use the watch for tracking their activity. Either it will be replaced by a slide sensor, dropped, or Apple may come out with a iBrush to clean the iGrime.
Price, naturally is an issue for many as Fitbit is 3.5 times cheaper AND does not require a new iPhone too boot.
Apple Watch also features the same old issues which caused Woz to throw away his Samsung Galaxy Gear, dubbing it "worthless". http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
You had to hold it up to your ear and stuff.... "I want my smartphone [on my wrist], but I really want the whole thing," said Wozniak. "I don't want just a little Bluetooth connection to the smartphone in my pocket because then it's just an intermediary, an extra thing I buy to get what I already have and have to carry anyway."
His comments reflect a trend seen in the adoption of wearable technology by consumers. Around 40% of UK consumers ended up abandoning them because they got bored with the idea or simply forgot to put them on, according to research by CCS Insight. Fewer than half a million smartwatches were in use in the UK by March this year, according to data from research company KWP ComTech.
The story is similar in the US. One-third of American consumers have also stopped using a smart wearable device within six months of purchase according to data from Endeavour Partners.
Though, the reality distortion field is a powerful force, and one that must be reckoned with. From USA TODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
As with other smartwatches, consumers will be able to change watch faces on the new Apple Watch and customize it in various ways. I especially liked a watchface featuring Mickey Mouse.
Customizable wallpaper/skin. A highlighted feature for the Apple crowd.
Nor did I. I said you conflated them into a single entity, by implying the relation of one with the other.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.
And further attaching the entity of "blame" to that entity, through the reasoning presented, where you use "fault" and "blame" as if they are the same thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block.
I hope that you don't talk to people in real life "in computer terms". Someone might "allocate" a fist to your face for "allocating" something to them.
Here's a hint. Human social life, including communication, i.e. language, is NOT computer code or algorithms. It's more closely related to metadata.
That is why statements like
"I <3 apples"
and
"I <3 Apples"
instantly evoke VERY different images and emotions, despite identical letters and pronunciation. There is hidden metadata.
Same way, because someone along the way attached the "i" metadata to one of those, the i-Product_Name is automatically understood with only one of those statements. Someone spent a lot of money and time to establish such a metadata relationship. A conflation of Apple with i-Product_Name.
Which is the same thing you did, when you've established through your reasoning of "Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.", and further talk of "allocating" fault, but deallocating "blame". You've conflated or bundled the issues of "responsibility", "fault" and "blame" into a single issue.
The compiler built into the human brain does not throw errors when you fail to define a variable before use - it guesses and attaches "like to like". Which is why you can talk about "fault" and interchange it for "blame" later on, without noticing the problem that causes. I.e. You conflate them into a single idea.
Which is NOT the greatest of your errors. The idea of it all being a zero sum game is. Your "100% or less allocation" is a faulty way of thinking about the issues at hand. Metadata relation is not quantity-dependent. It's relation-dependent.
His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.
Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way. Not as evidence for or against ANY OF THE SUSPECTS, not related to victims OR the murders. Again, it relates ONLY for conspiracy theorist who have an axe to grind with Jews. And we know who they are because...
I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.
Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!" Once again, the old proven rule of "just let them talk" has proven true.
In this case, the racist only sees the need to state "ethnicity and religious affiliation" if it is related to Jews in some way. Even when the only relation is through something that is of no merit to the case, except in their minds. In comparison... Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.
I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders wasn't in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives. Well, except for Hitler, but he was motivated by religion/ethnicity of the victims, not by his own.
Thank you for watching and now a word from our sponsors... Troll-a-Way.
You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
The numbers listed and those in the linked reports are for electricity they ARE producing, and the numbers they WILL BE producing. From ALL renewable resources and from nuclear reactors.
Everything else, and you got MUCH HIGHER numbers for that too, is electricity created by burning oil and gas. And that's just the electricity production.
When you're used to living in a lifeless desert, with insane temperatures, on top of an oil well, why would you give a flying fuck about melting icecaps, changing climate or more of the world turning into a desert while you're racking in billions in the process? It's gonna get hotter? April and May will be like July? So what? It's gonna get colder? Great! More deserts? So what? Food will be more expensive? More expensive than shipping it into a middle of nowhere IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT? Oil will become more expensive? FANTASTIC!
THEY. DON'T. GIVE A FUCK.
They are not EU countries like Germany, who do have something to lose and a lot more people who will complain about things like dead bears - so they are switching completely to renewable sources.
Camel spiders and scorpions might die from heat? EXCELLENT! That's why UAE's PLANS, not current production but PLANS, for renewable sources are trivial compared to same old same old burning of oil and gas, while SA's are a mere fraction of what they are producing from oil and gas, and similarly, it's all "down the road, someday". They have nothing to lose due to global warming. Not their problem.
Saudi Arabia has announced it is on track to start work on its first major solar farm early next year.... He added the project was on track to begin feeding electricity into the grid by 2015 and will mark the first step on the government's path towards delivering 41GW of solar capacity by 2032, through a combination of solar PV and solar thermal technologies.
And they are planing to be producing 120 GW by 2020 - of which only those 41GW will be solar. By 2032. 17GW will be nuclear. http://www.eia.gov/countries/c...
UAE as of 2011 was producing 26.1 GW of electricity. http://www.eia.gov/countries/c... With plans for 28.8 megawatts (MW) wind farm and a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant with 100 MW capacity. While building at least 4 nuclear reactors, first two 1.4 GW ones planned to come on-line in 2017.
Neither country cares much about renewable sources because 1) oil and gas and 2) they are investing in nuclear.
Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes.
First off, now is not "at the time". Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.
There was never any evidence or testimony of any ethnic or religious identity of the murderer. Nor were murders ever explained as a religious or ethnic ritual - other than in completely made up conspiracy theories involving everything from royal family, through obligatory masonic this or that, to Lewis Carroll. Because he wrote weird books. Clearly, Alice was written in code, describing his murders.
The whole "connection", including the graffiti you mention, boils down to "some people were very anti-Semitic back then". Which provides as much reasoning to prominently point out the ethnicity of a supposed "proven" murderer as it would to point out the ethnicity of any famous murderer.
Try it like this... Do articles about John Wilkes Booth start with the mention of his ethnicity and religious affiliation? How about Lee Harvey Oswald? How about John Wayne Gacy? Theodore Robert Bundy? Charles Milles Manson?
Here's an easy one... Adolf Hitler. Do articles on Hitler start "Adolph Hitler, a Catholic dictator..."?
What you are providing up there is not a valid reason but RATIONALIZATION of one's either deliberate attempt at sensationalism or utter lack of tact or reason. I'll exclude the possibility of racism cause that would be beyond retarded.
Copying confidential information? Or just reading it? Copying a single copy is unauthorized copying. Sharing it would be copyright infringement.
The confidential part just adds possible unauthorized access if done without consent of the (living) person to whom the information belongs. Not necessarily though.
Copyright and confidentiality of information don't necessarily belong to a same person. And some confidential info can not be copyrighted - like PINs, passwords, various identifying names and numbers, medical records...
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist.
No it does not.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing. Which is not the case. That is why a statutory rape charge is not a possible charge if both persons who are engaged in consensual sex are adults.
Responsibility means that one is responsible for one's own actions. And yes, if one's actions endanger others they ARE responsible for the results of those actions. Like someone going out to sea in a storm, falling overboard and causing millions in damage to haul their ass out of the water.
The fault is not implied in one's responsibility, but in the results of their actions for which they are responsible. In the case of pictures and reddit and the deletes, celebrities have a responsibility to act like responsible adults. Responsible adults don't leave their naked pictures online. Period.
BUT! The burden of their fault there is suffered solely by their reputation and their "good name". Which is why they are making demands on account of this being "a copyright issue" and not something else, like invasion of privacy.
The responsibility for breaking into their accounts and taking and sharing those photos on the other hand belongs solely to those who did the breaking in/stealing/sharing. And so does the fault. For every one of those acts.
The responsibility for them being ABLE to do that rests on the host service which the celebrities in this case were using.
Same as the responsibility of reddit for providing their users with tools and ability to share those images. After all, if there was no responsibility there, celebs would have no one to ask to pull down those photos, but the people who actively share them on reddit.
And, we are back to celebs and their responsibility for demanding that reddit removes those images - causing reddit to remove entire subreddits, thus encroaching on freedom of speech of EVERYONE using those subreddits. More responsibility and more fault for both.
There are various responsibilities, various faults and none of them are a zero sum game. Some are a matter for the legal courts to determine the blame, some are judged in the court of public opinion, some will not be judged at all. But there is plenty of responsibility and fault to go around.
It's more like blaming somebody who was killed in a car accident that was somebody else's fault after they chose to wear their seatbelt, but design flaw they weren't aware of made it ineffective.
It's the "I don't need a seat belt, the car has airbags." situation.
And then the victim sues the manufacturer of the car driven by the driver who caused the accident. So the manufacturer silently recalls all those cars (they were distributed to drivers for free, in exchange for watching commercials) and melts them into slag. Along with anything that the drivers may have left inside.
Concentrating on the ethnicity of that POLISH immigrant sure will bring more clicks to the topic. After all... We haven't had a nice flame war since that last "Misogyny. Misogyny everywhere." story. But that was just about women and games and there aren't enough REAL lunatics interested in that.
We all know, real loonies is where the clicks are. So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.
There was no blood other than the victims on the shawl. And even that was only determined to match through mitochondrial DNA. What they claim to have matched "definitely, categorically and absolutely" to the murderer are "traces of semen thought to belong to the killer". Traces of semen. On the clothes of ONE of the victims. Who was a prostitute.
Clearly, "Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt." Non-believers perpetuating myths? I'm not sure that's how it goes.
From TFA:
A blood-stained shawl belonging to one of the Ripper's victims bought at an auction in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in 2007 was used as the basis for the research. As well as being soaked in her blood, it was found to have traces of semen thought to belong to the killer. Mr Edwards said: âoeI've got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. âoeI've spent 14 years working on it, and we have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was. "Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now - we have unmasked him."
BUT WAIT! There is more... it is once again mitochondrial. In other words...
Critics, however, have pointed out that the DNA comparisons focused on mitochondrial DNA, which could be shared by anything from between 1% and 10% of the population, so it was hardly unique to Sickert.
It was impossible to extract DNA from the stains on the shawl using the method employed in current cases, in which swabs are taken. The samples were just too old.
Instead, he used a method he called âvacuumingâ(TM), using a pipette filled with a special âbufferingâ(TM) liquid that removed the genetic material in the cloth without damaging it. As a non-scientist, I found myself in a new world as Jari warned that it would also be impossible to use genomic DNA, which is used in fresh cases and contains a humanâ(TM)s entire genetic data, because over time it would have become fragmented.
But he explained it would be possible to use mitochondrial DNA instead. It is passed down exclusively through the female line, is much more abundant than genomic DNA, and survives far better.
Making it exactly as valid as the Walter Sickert "evidence" from postage stamps.
Additional unrelated article about errors in her "research and conclusions" based on prejudices and foregone conclusions which boil down to "let's blame everything on you know who". And going further into what is basically either willful ignorance or borderline insanity. http://armedgamer.com/2014/07/...
Actually, after getting this crash course in her... opus, I'd be hard pressed to describe her not as a gamer but as a feminist. Opportunist? Yes. Hypocrite? That too. Feminist... don't see how. Because she's female?
But what she most reminds me of is an economic opportunist turned chauvinist by said opportunity and the "role of the dice". E.g. People who root for the local team because the jerseys with local team's insignia sell better in their store. Or people who take up video games and feminism as a cause because video games are "about US$9.5 billion in the US in 2007, 11.7 billion in 2008, and 25.1 billion in 2010" industry, and because the "role of dice" (more like flip of a coin) determined their gender as female.
Someone with a nose for a lucrative opportunity, but without actual understanding of the subject he/she preaches to the masses. Be it games or feminism. She obviously lacks basic understanding of both. Both of which she often tries to cover up with weasel words (such as "my version of feminism", "stereotypical female values") and by spiraling her "arguments" around in circles until she contradicts herself - and then she contradicts herself contradicting herself.
All of which, considering her somewhat privileged background (google for images of 'gamer girl'... then google 'black gamer girl'), also makes her an exploiter.
By an ad hominem from a 4-million pipsqueak who argues with himself in his mind and then drops fragments of those quarrels as if they are arguments. LOL! Uuuuhhh... now you've "foed" me. Hilarious. Here you go then. Have fun being my "foe".
Judging from your line of thinking, you're probably one of those intellectual behemoths who believe that science is a matter of consensus. So you can't even grasp the idea of proven scientific facts having a proven effect or direct influence on historic events.
Go on now. Run along. It's probably your time to jerk off while reading Lacan or something.
Haven't watched it. That's why I said "judging from the titles".
And maybe it does try to not be Western Civilization centric... but it ultimately fails. You can tell by looking at the nouns.
Alexander the Great and American and French Revolutions get "name drops" but no Gandhi, any of Chinese or Japanese emperors OR any of Russian revolutions. We'll just bundle those under larger historical movements. Like we didn't bundle Alexander with the rest of the Ancient Greece or the American Revolution with colonialism. Samurai, Daimyo - and Matthew Perry. Seriously? Chandler gets his own chapter?
But you can tell something else from the structuring of the lessons. Where the course actually goes wrong in its presentation of WORLD history. It assembles historical events chronologically and culturally. Instead of geographically on a chronological axis.
History happened in a time and place, with human actors within that time and place. It did NOT happen around messianic human actors who changed history because they were illegitimate children of deities or because they were secretly aliens from the future.
So we get a history told around "major events", which inevitably leads to a history as told by the ultimate winners of those events. I.e. Colonial and other empires. Fuck the native populations of the colonies. They got little or no history anyway.
So, instead of intermingling, conflicting and allied human cultures, we get BIG and small cultures. Winners and losers. And those relegated to a footnote somewhere. 19th century idea of the world all over again. A world of glorious US and inferior THEM.
Seriously, Chandler gets as much attention as the Mongols or the WWII.
Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"
No crusades or Jihad in your version of history? No millions dead due to brand spanking new killing toys of WWI and WWII? No Holocaust? How about agriculture, cities, steel, bronze, stone? None of that influenced history? Industrial revolution had no effect on history? How about the age of exploration? That needed some significant tech advancements to work as it did? Colonization? Nope? How about language? That's a big one among the techs. Shaped the fuck out of history. Thousands died even in the Bible (both tech AND a social trend) on account of how they pronounced shibboleth.
In the elementary sciences, you can verify the truth of many statements by direct, independent experimentation. You can't do that in history or many other fields.
So... nobody knows how Lincoln or JFK died or what killed all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No evidence ever existed. All we know is they died. Same way we can't tell what people wore or ate or how they lived in the past.
Not only is it completely impossible to examine historical artifacts and records, it is also completely impossible that the same "elementary" forces worked the same way a year ago as they do now. Clearly, the force that killed JFK was not anything like... say... a metal projectile ejected from a machined piece of steel, propelled by the same chemical reactions and forces that might fire a bullet from a gun today.
After all, who's to say they even had chemistry back then? Those ancient tales are unverifiable today just like the stories of the Bible. Maybe a dragon ate him? Who knows... You simply can't verify the truth in history or many other fields.
Judging from the titles, nothing ever happened in South America. Until Columbus at least. And almost nothing ever happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, India... at least not until Western Civilizations got involved. "Hey there aboriginal natives! You've just been discovered. Rejoice!"
What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached?
It is an attempt to use history as a narrative glue and a conduit for connection of other subjects taught in school, instead of teaching math and physics and chemistry and biology and languages as if there is no interconnection. Same goes for world cultures, geography, how technology and social trends influenced history etc.
Hopefully, that would lead to kids coming out of high school or even elementary school realizing that global cultures are all part of a greater human culture. And that those same rules that work in elementary sciences also apply to EVERYTHING ELSE.
Instead of teaching a single version of history through rote memorization, into which any history course taught in elementary/high school education eventually devolves.
Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University who has been a vocal critic of Gates, put even it more starkly: âoeWhen I think about history, I think about different perspectives, clashing points of view. I wonder how Bill Gates would treat the robber barons. I wonder how Bill Gates would deal with issues of extremes of wealth and poverty.â (The Big History Project doesnâ(TM)t mention robber barons, but it does briefly address unequal distribution of resources.) Ravitch continued: âoeIt begins to be a question of: Is this Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history? And should it be labeled âBill Gatesâ(TM)s Historyâ(TM)? Because Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history would be very different from somebody elseâ(TM)s who wasnâ(TM)t worth $50-60 billion.â (Gatesâ(TM)s estimated net worth is approximately $80 billion.)
It's a case of the "Slashdot approach" to topic being discussed. Not reading TFA (TFC? TFH?) and complaining about something which may or may not be there, based on personal prejudice.
I.e. Questioning how will "Gates History", which it is not, deal with sensitive issues regarding money and wealth acquisition, implying a conflict of interest. For no reason other than Bill Gates' involvement with the course. Because Bill Gates is apparently Scrooge McDuck even in the minds of highly educated people like "Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University". A caricature of a human/duck hybrid, who loves only money, and is willing to rewrite history in order to please money gods.
That would be nice. But in the meantime... it's about property.
Not quite.
An apt comparison would be comparing "cyborgs" i.e. people with various technology built into their bodies, for uses other than medical, with gun laws. I.e. It is not a property issue but a claim right issue.
As for machines and not humans with implants... again... that is not a property issue. It is not even an issue of consciousness nor intelligence (should those machines posses it) as we regularly limit the rights of humans who have shown a lack of self-control - be it due to intoxication, disability, age... We limit their rights, assign them guardians, we imprison them etc. Again, it is an issue of claim rights and duties.
And, whether we like it or not, the issue of rights of robots and AI's will probably be settled in an unrelated field long before it becomes an actual issue. And it will be done without care for science or logic. The main factor will be cuteness.
Slashdot Mirror
A line of code, reporting imaginary flushes if number of flushes in last 24 hours is 0, would fix that.
Salting the flushes, so to speak.
And the difference would be...?
That's called a ruler.
Many times I could have used a disintegrator that could turn a plus-sized human body into energy, but I guess I'd settle for an electric shocker which only incapacitates.
Oh, and something like a pedometer but just for my arm.
Don't worry. At 70 degrees Celsius all water from the gutter will just evaporate and your air conditioner will catch fire.
But you'll be too busy being boiled like an egg to care about the noise.
From TFA:
Exposing the SMP to heat above 60 to 70 degrees Celsius causes the material to become flexible enough to undergo geometric deformations. The material then cools into its new rigid form. Apply another round of heat, and it will return to its original memory state.
http://www.fitbit.com/forcesup...
While only 1.7% of Force users have reported any type of skin irritation, we care about every one of our customers. On behalf of the entire Fitbit team, I want to apologize to anyone affected. ...
Independent test results have not found any issues with the battery or electrical systems.
Test results show that users are likely experiencing allergic contact dermatitis.
All Force materials are commonly used in consumer products. However, some users may be reacting to the nickel present in the surgical grade stainless steel used in the device. Other users are likely experiencing an allergic reaction to the materials used in the strap or the adhesives used to assemble the product.
And that's just one of them, that Fitbit ran into.
Apple may be running into that same one, AND MORE, once people start using their watch instead of the Fitbit or using it like the Fitbit.
For one, Fitbit's battery lasts a week. Tim Cook suggested charging Apple Watch over night.
With all those sensors, "Taptic" actuators, color screens... I have a feeling that's a rather optimistic estimate.
They didn't mention the battery for a reason.
Also, I have a feeling that the "Digital Crown" won't last. At least for people trying to use the watch for tracking their activity.
Either it will be replaced by a slide sensor, dropped, or Apple may come out with a iBrush to clean the iGrime.
Price, naturally is an issue for many as Fitbit is 3.5 times cheaper AND does not require a new iPhone too boot.
Apple Watch also features the same old issues which caused Woz to throw away his Samsung Galaxy Gear, dubbing it "worthless".
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
You had to hold it up to your ear and stuff. ...
"I want my smartphone [on my wrist], but I really want the whole thing," said Wozniak. "I don't want just a little Bluetooth connection to the smartphone in my pocket because then it's just an intermediary, an extra thing I buy to get what I already have and have to carry anyway."
His comments reflect a trend seen in the adoption of wearable technology by consumers. Around 40% of UK consumers ended up abandoning them because they got bored with the idea or simply forgot to put them on, according to research by CCS Insight. Fewer than half a million smartwatches were in use in the UK by March this year, according to data from research company KWP ComTech.
The story is similar in the US. One-third of American consumers have also stopped using a smart wearable device within six months of purchase according to data from Endeavour Partners.
Though, the reality distortion field is a powerful force, and one that must be reckoned with.
From USA TODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
As with other smartwatches, consumers will be able to change watch faces on the new Apple Watch and customize it in various ways.
I especially liked a watchface featuring Mickey Mouse.
Customizable wallpaper/skin. A highlighted feature for the Apple crowd.
I did not say they were a single thing.
Nor did I. I said you conflated them into a single entity, by implying the relation of one with the other.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.
And further attaching the entity of "blame" to that entity, through the reasoning presented, where you use "fault" and "blame" as if they are the same thing.
I'm afraid you're miscomprehending. In computer terms you're confusing the if statement with the contents of the optional block.
I hope that you don't talk to people in real life "in computer terms".
Someone might "allocate" a fist to your face for "allocating" something to them.
Here's a hint.
Human social life, including communication, i.e. language, is NOT computer code or algorithms.
It's more closely related to metadata.
That is why statements like
and
instantly evoke VERY different images and emotions, despite identical letters and pronunciation.
There is hidden metadata.
Same way, because someone along the way attached the "i" metadata to one of those, the i-Product_Name is automatically understood with only one of those statements.
Someone spent a lot of money and time to establish such a metadata relationship.
A conflation of Apple with i-Product_Name.
Which is the same thing you did, when you've established through your reasoning of "Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing.", and further talk of "allocating" fault, but deallocating "blame".
You've conflated or bundled the issues of "responsibility", "fault" and "blame" into a single issue.
The compiler built into the human brain does not throw errors when you fail to define a variable before use - it guesses and attaches "like to like".
Which is why you can talk about "fault" and interchange it for "blame" later on, without noticing the problem that causes.
I.e. You conflate them into a single idea.
Which is NOT the greatest of your errors. The idea of it all being a zero sum game is.
Your "100% or less allocation" is a faulty way of thinking about the issues at hand.
Metadata relation is not quantity-dependent. It's relation-dependent.
How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex?
Now you're just being a troll.
Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.
What you are doing is called ignoratio elenchi.
His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.
Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.
Not as evidence for or against ANY OF THE SUSPECTS, not related to victims OR the murders.
Again, it relates ONLY for conspiracy theorist who have an axe to grind with Jews.
And we know who they are because...
I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.
Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"
Once again, the old proven rule of "just let them talk" has proven true.
In this case, the racist only sees the need to state "ethnicity and religious affiliation" if it is related to Jews in some way.
Even when the only relation is through something that is of no merit to the case, except in their minds.
In comparison... Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.
Thank you for watching and now a word from our sponsors... Troll-a-Way.
You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
The numbers listed and those in the linked reports are for electricity they ARE producing, and the numbers they WILL BE producing.
From ALL renewable resources and from nuclear reactors.
Everything else, and you got MUCH HIGHER numbers for that too, is electricity created by burning oil and gas.
And that's just the electricity production.
When you're used to living in a lifeless desert, with insane temperatures, on top of an oil well, why would you give a flying fuck about melting icecaps, changing climate or more of the world turning into a desert while you're racking in billions in the process?
It's gonna get hotter? April and May will be like July? So what? It's gonna get colder? Great!
More deserts? So what? Food will be more expensive?
More expensive than shipping it into a middle of nowhere IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT?
Oil will become more expensive? FANTASTIC!
THEY. DON'T. GIVE A FUCK.
They are not EU countries like Germany, who do have something to lose and a lot more people who will complain about things like dead bears - so they are switching completely to renewable sources.
Camel spiders and scorpions might die from heat? EXCELLENT!
That's why UAE's PLANS, not current production but PLANS, for renewable sources are trivial compared to same old same old burning of oil and gas, while SA's are a mere fraction of what they are producing from oil and gas, and similarly, it's all "down the road, someday".
They have nothing to lose due to global warming. Not their problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
From TFA:
Saudi Arabia has announced it is on track to start work on its first major solar farm early next year. ...
He added the project was on track to begin feeding electricity into the grid by 2015 and will mark the first step on the government's path towards delivering 41GW of solar capacity by 2032, through a combination of solar PV and solar thermal technologies.
And they are planing to be producing 120 GW by 2020 - of which only those 41GW will be solar. By 2032. 17GW will be nuclear.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/c...
UAE as of 2011 was producing 26.1 GW of electricity.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/c...
With plans for 28.8 megawatts (MW) wind farm and a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant with 100 MW capacity.
While building at least 4 nuclear reactors, first two 1.4 GW ones planned to come on-line in 2017.
Neither country cares much about renewable sources because 1) oil and gas and 2) they are investing in nuclear.
Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes.
First off, now is not "at the time".
Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.
There was never any evidence or testimony of any ethnic or religious identity of the murderer.
Nor were murders ever explained as a religious or ethnic ritual - other than in completely made up conspiracy theories involving everything from royal family, through obligatory masonic this or that, to Lewis Carroll.
Because he wrote weird books. Clearly, Alice was written in code, describing his murders.
The whole "connection", including the graffiti you mention, boils down to "some people were very anti-Semitic back then".
Which provides as much reasoning to prominently point out the ethnicity of a supposed "proven" murderer as it would to point out the ethnicity of any famous murderer.
Try it like this...
Do articles about John Wilkes Booth start with the mention of his ethnicity and religious affiliation?
How about Lee Harvey Oswald?
How about John Wayne Gacy?
Theodore Robert Bundy?
Charles Milles Manson?
Here's an easy one... Adolf Hitler. Do articles on Hitler start "Adolph Hitler, a Catholic dictator..."?
What you are providing up there is not a valid reason but RATIONALIZATION of one's either deliberate attempt at sensationalism or utter lack of tact or reason.
I'll exclude the possibility of racism cause that would be beyond retarded.
copying someones private diary
Copying.
confidential information
Copying confidential information? Or just reading it?
Copying a single copy is unauthorized copying. Sharing it would be copyright infringement.
The confidential part just adds possible unauthorized access if done without consent of the (living) person to whom the information belongs.
Not necessarily though.
Copyright and confidentiality of information don't necessarily belong to a same person.
And some confidential info can not be copyrighted - like PINs, passwords, various identifying names and numbers, medical records...
in which copying IS stealing in some contexts whether you think it's right or wrong
No, it's not.
It's copyright infringement.
Unless you're talking about trade secrets.
Which is again not stealing. It might be trademark or patent infringement though.
Calling any of that stealing is like calling drawing blood, or any other easily renewable bodily fluid, murder.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist.
No it does not.
You are conflating responsibility, blame and fault into one and single thing. Which is not the case.
That is why a statutory rape charge is not a possible charge if both persons who are engaged in consensual sex are adults.
Responsibility means that one is responsible for one's own actions.
And yes, if one's actions endanger others they ARE responsible for the results of those actions.
Like someone going out to sea in a storm, falling overboard and causing millions in damage to haul their ass out of the water.
The fault is not implied in one's responsibility, but in the results of their actions for which they are responsible.
In the case of pictures and reddit and the deletes, celebrities have a responsibility to act like responsible adults.
Responsible adults don't leave their naked pictures online. Period.
BUT!
The burden of their fault there is suffered solely by their reputation and their "good name".
Which is why they are making demands on account of this being "a copyright issue" and not something else, like invasion of privacy.
The responsibility for breaking into their accounts and taking and sharing those photos on the other hand belongs solely to those who did the breaking in/stealing/sharing.
And so does the fault. For every one of those acts.
The responsibility for them being ABLE to do that rests on the host service which the celebrities in this case were using.
Same as the responsibility of reddit for providing their users with tools and ability to share those images.
After all, if there was no responsibility there, celebs would have no one to ask to pull down those photos, but the people who actively share them on reddit.
And, we are back to celebs and their responsibility for demanding that reddit removes those images - causing reddit to remove entire subreddits, thus encroaching on freedom of speech of EVERYONE using those subreddits.
More responsibility and more fault for both.
There are various responsibilities, various faults and none of them are a zero sum game.
Some are a matter for the legal courts to determine the blame, some are judged in the court of public opinion, some will not be judged at all.
But there is plenty of responsibility and fault to go around.
It's more like blaming somebody who was killed in a car accident that was somebody else's fault after they chose to wear their seatbelt, but design flaw they weren't aware of made it ineffective.
It's the "I don't need a seat belt, the car has airbags." situation.
And then the victim sues the manufacturer of the car driven by the driver who caused the accident.
So the manufacturer silently recalls all those cars (they were distributed to drivers for free, in exchange for watching commercials) and melts them into slag.
Along with anything that the drivers may have left inside.
Like the one just below...
Concentrating on the ethnicity of that POLISH immigrant sure will bring more clicks to the topic.
After all... We haven't had a nice flame war since that last "Misogyny. Misogyny everywhere." story.
But that was just about women and games and there aren't enough REAL lunatics interested in that.
We all know, real loonies is where the clicks are.
So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.
Thanks timothy. :)
There was no blood other than the victims on the shawl. And even that was only determined to match through mitochondrial DNA.
What they claim to have matched "definitely, categorically and absolutely" to the murderer are "traces of semen thought to belong to the killer".
Traces of semen. On the clothes of ONE of the victims. Who was a prostitute.
Clearly, "Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt."
Non-believers perpetuating myths? I'm not sure that's how it goes.
From TFA:
A blood-stained shawl belonging to one of the Ripper's victims bought at an auction in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in 2007 was used as the basis for the research.
As well as being soaked in her blood, it was found to have traces of semen thought to belong to the killer.
Mr Edwards said: âoeI've got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case.
âoeI've spent 14 years working on it, and we have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.
"Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now - we have unmasked him."
BUT WAIT! There is more... it is once again mitochondrial.
In other words...
Critics, however, have pointed out that the DNA comparisons focused on mitochondrial DNA, which could be shared by anything from between 1% and 10% of the population, so it was hardly unique to Sickert.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
It was impossible to extract DNA from the stains on the shawl using the method employed in current cases, in which swabs are taken. The samples were just too old.
Instead, he used a method he called âvacuumingâ(TM), using a pipette filled with a special âbufferingâ(TM) liquid that removed the genetic material in the cloth without damaging it.
As a non-scientist, I found myself in a new world as Jari warned that it would also be impossible to use genomic DNA, which is used in fresh cases and contains a humanâ(TM)s entire genetic data, because over time it would have become fragmented.
But he explained it would be possible to use mitochondrial DNA instead. It is passed down exclusively through the female line, is much more abundant than genomic DNA, and survives far better.
Making it exactly as valid as the Walter Sickert "evidence" from postage stamps.
Can you point to specific examples of where her research and conclusions were incorrect and undermine her wider argument?
Others did that already...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Reply to rebuttal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Both videos are extensively sourced.
Additional unrelated article about errors in her "research and conclusions" based on prejudices and foregone conclusions which boil down to "let's blame everything on you know who".
And going further into what is basically either willful ignorance or borderline insanity.
http://armedgamer.com/2014/07/...
Actually, after getting this crash course in her... opus, I'd be hard pressed to describe her not as a gamer but as a feminist.
Opportunist? Yes. Hypocrite? That too.
Feminist... don't see how. Because she's female?
But what she most reminds me of is an economic opportunist turned chauvinist by said opportunity and the "role of the dice".
E.g. People who root for the local team because the jerseys with local team's insignia sell better in their store.
Or people who take up video games and feminism as a cause because video games are "about US$9.5 billion in the US in 2007, 11.7 billion in 2008, and 25.1 billion in 2010" industry, and because the "role of dice" (more like flip of a coin) determined their gender as female.
Someone with a nose for a lucrative opportunity, but without actual understanding of the subject he/she preaches to the masses.
Be it games or feminism. She obviously lacks basic understanding of both.
Both of which she often tries to cover up with weasel words (such as "my version of feminism", "stereotypical female values") and by spiraling her "arguments" around in circles until she contradicts herself - and then she contradicts herself contradicting herself.
All of which, considering her somewhat privileged background (google for images of 'gamer girl'... then google 'black gamer girl'), also makes her an exploiter.
By an ad hominem from a 4-million pipsqueak who argues with himself in his mind and then drops fragments of those quarrels as if they are arguments.
LOL! Uuuuhhh... now you've "foed" me. Hilarious. Here you go then. Have fun being my "foe".
Judging from your line of thinking, you're probably one of those intellectual behemoths who believe that science is a matter of consensus.
So you can't even grasp the idea of proven scientific facts having a proven effect or direct influence on historic events.
Go on now. Run along.
It's probably your time to jerk off while reading Lacan or something.
Haven't watched it. That's why I said "judging from the titles".
And maybe it does try to not be Western Civilization centric... but it ultimately fails.
You can tell by looking at the nouns.
Alexander the Great and American and French Revolutions get "name drops" but no Gandhi, any of Chinese or Japanese emperors OR any of Russian revolutions.
We'll just bundle those under larger historical movements.
Like we didn't bundle Alexander with the rest of the Ancient Greece or the American Revolution with colonialism.
Samurai, Daimyo - and Matthew Perry. Seriously? Chandler gets his own chapter?
But you can tell something else from the structuring of the lessons. Where the course actually goes wrong in its presentation of WORLD history.
It assembles historical events chronologically and culturally.
Instead of geographically on a chronological axis.
History happened in a time and place, with human actors within that time and place.
It did NOT happen around messianic human actors who changed history because they were illegitimate children of deities or because they were secretly aliens from the future.
So we get a history told around "major events", which inevitably leads to a history as told by the ultimate winners of those events.
I.e. Colonial and other empires.
Fuck the native populations of the colonies. They got little or no history anyway.
So, instead of intermingling, conflicting and allied human cultures, we get BIG and small cultures.
Winners and losers. And those relegated to a footnote somewhere.
19th century idea of the world all over again.
A world of glorious US and inferior THEM.
Seriously, Chandler gets as much attention as the Mongols or the WWII.
Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"
No crusades or Jihad in your version of history?
No millions dead due to brand spanking new killing toys of WWI and WWII?
No Holocaust?
How about agriculture, cities, steel, bronze, stone? None of that influenced history?
Industrial revolution had no effect on history?
How about the age of exploration? That needed some significant tech advancements to work as it did?
Colonization? Nope?
How about language? That's a big one among the techs. Shaped the fuck out of history. Thousands died even in the Bible (both tech AND a social trend) on account of how they pronounced shibboleth.
In the elementary sciences, you can verify the truth of many statements by direct, independent experimentation. You can't do that in history or many other fields.
So... nobody knows how Lincoln or JFK died or what killed all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No evidence ever existed. All we know is they died.
Same way we can't tell what people wore or ate or how they lived in the past.
Not only is it completely impossible to examine historical artifacts and records, it is also completely impossible that the same "elementary" forces worked the same way a year ago as they do now.
Clearly, the force that killed JFK was not anything like... say... a metal projectile ejected from a machined piece of steel, propelled by the same chemical reactions and forces that might fire a bullet from a gun today.
After all, who's to say they even had chemistry back then? Those ancient tales are unverifiable today just like the stories of the Bible.
Maybe a dragon ate him? Who knows... You simply can't verify the truth in history or many other fields.
Judging from the titles, nothing ever happened in South America. Until Columbus at least.
And almost nothing ever happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, India... at least not until Western Civilizations got involved.
"Hey there aboriginal natives! You've just been discovered. Rejoice!"
What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached?
It is an attempt to use history as a narrative glue and a conduit for connection of other subjects taught in school, instead of teaching math and physics and chemistry and biology and languages as if there is no interconnection.
Same goes for world cultures, geography, how technology and social trends influenced history etc.
Hopefully, that would lead to kids coming out of high school or even elementary school realizing that global cultures are all part of a greater human culture.
And that those same rules that work in elementary sciences also apply to EVERYTHING ELSE.
Instead of teaching a single version of history through rote memorization, into which any history course taught in elementary/high school education eventually devolves.
From TFA:
Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University who has been a vocal critic of Gates, put even it more starkly: âoeWhen I think about history, I think about different perspectives, clashing points of view. I wonder how Bill Gates would treat the robber barons. I wonder how Bill Gates would deal with issues of extremes of wealth and poverty.â (The Big History Project doesnâ(TM)t mention robber barons, but it does briefly address unequal distribution of resources.) Ravitch continued: âoeIt begins to be a question of: Is this Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history? And should it be labeled âBill Gatesâ(TM)s Historyâ(TM)? Because Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history would be very different from somebody elseâ(TM)s who wasnâ(TM)t worth $50-60 billion.â (Gatesâ(TM)s estimated net worth is approximately $80 billion.)
It's a case of the "Slashdot approach" to topic being discussed.
Not reading TFA (TFC? TFH?) and complaining about something which may or may not be there, based on personal prejudice.
I.e. Questioning how will "Gates History", which it is not, deal with sensitive issues regarding money and wealth acquisition, implying a conflict of interest.
For no reason other than Bill Gates' involvement with the course.
Because Bill Gates is apparently Scrooge McDuck even in the minds of highly educated people like "Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University".
A caricature of a human/duck hybrid, who loves only money, and is willing to rewrite history in order to please money gods.
That would be nice. But in the meantime ... it's about property.
Not quite.
An apt comparison would be comparing "cyborgs" i.e. people with various technology built into their bodies, for uses other than medical, with gun laws.
I.e. It is not a property issue but a claim right issue.
As for machines and not humans with implants... again... that is not a property issue.
It is not even an issue of consciousness nor intelligence (should those machines posses it) as we regularly limit the rights of humans who have shown a lack of self-control - be it due to intoxication, disability, age...
We limit their rights, assign them guardians, we imprison them etc.
Again, it is an issue of claim rights and duties.
And, whether we like it or not, the issue of rights of robots and AI's will probably be settled in an unrelated field long before it becomes an actual issue.
And it will be done without care for science or logic. The main factor will be cuteness.