Of course -- to solve a problem you need an inspiration, whose appearance you cannot control, but is more likely to appear when you are relaxed and open for subtle voices in your mind. And you're more likely to be relaxed if you use a tool you love rather than one you are afraid of.
It's more than that -- it's about intelligent interaction not just with the road but with other "brains" so to speak where the rules and modes of interaction are infinite -- vs. the extremely limited rules of interaction with other "brains" as in Go and chess. I guess they'll have to limit the problem to make it closer to Go/chess.
Net Neutrality is/was a law that, in its majestic equality, forced ISPs to not throttle a small startup's service's bandwidth, as well as Google's, so that both the small startup and Google can continue to make profit at the same rate they currently do and compete on the market without favoritism.
Yes, please tell us exactly what was in the Mueller Report and what it means. I'm sure you're one of the select inner circle who has actually read the report, and not just heard reports about Barr's obviously biased "summary".
Looks like you are also in the inner circle since you know the summary is "obviously biased" compared to the original report.
If Democrats do political posturing to gain what they think would be points instead of being productive that will be difficult to hide. People aren't stupid.
If Dems really truly believe Net Neutrality is extremely important for our society and have data to back it up and McConell still shoots them down out of spite then he'll be the villain. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
If their Constitutional duty is to not elect people who aren't fit to govern according to one half of voters (and Lanthanide), then they clearly failed.
Linus underestimates the psychological damage you do to yourself when posting with your name. Facebook exploits this human trait like sugar industry exploits our being wired to get as much historically rare carbs as possible.
Here's the problem: if you approach all those top-down, "we're doing this because climate", it won't stick. People will rebel because they will hate changing hard habits for what to them looks like a speculation (and it is -- there is no way to disprove or even verify the entire climate change theory). The car exhaust, the rivers on fire, the decreased bird populations, all of that was obviously wrong, it smelled like death -- it made living creatures that we are recoil. Not so with climate change: it's an abstract, dry, unbelievable, unrelatable theory to most of us.
Approach all those you mentioned bottom up and focus on reducing pollution; in the process you will likely reduce the carbon footprint. If the theory is correct, great. If it isn't, we will still benefit from less harm to living things.
They should have worked out Trump in the equation for extra clicks: "Trump Administration's policy could trigger extra 8C of global warming." No one could resist, as much as they would hate themselves for clicking.
I asked the manager why the cheap to license, repetitive music had to be blasting all the time even in an empty gym and he said it's the company policy to make it more attractive to customers and it's hard for you but imagine how it is for me he said, I have to listen to it all day.
I have quit that gym since but left wondering, what was that policy based on? What if customers, occasional and frequent, hate it as much as the manager? Why exactly are we all suffering then?
Recently I heard through another trainer that the manager had also quit.
It's statistical processes that make something natural. Eg. butter has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, and previously never by any humans ever. Margarine had been consumed for about 50. So food-wise no butter is the most natural, butter is fairly natural, margarine is the least natural. It's those "very little natural" substances and processes that we for simplicity call unnatural.
How natural something is isn't always correlated to how good it is for you of course, but in the absence of other information and combined with common sense that metric serves as a useful guide.
This is the kind of thing that is much easier to get public support for than the hockey sticks and whatnots. We're wasting not just time and money but also the goodwill of the general public by insisting on climate change models.
This is not about policy. If an honest candidate comes out with a Democratic Socialist platform and people vote for it, that's fine by me. Vox populi, vox dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God, the basic principle of democracy. What I object to is the *mob*, the army of self-righteous leftists trying to shut down anyone who wanted to say why he might vote for Trump or disagree with mandatory gender neutral pronouns or why they think ending NN is not necessarily a bad idea and so on. Far worse than any policy is suppression of free discussion -- then it's guaranteed you'll end up in a hole. My rant is against them.
We went from "killing the NN will be the end of the Internet as we know it" to "unprecedented growth in broadband connectivity last year" not being "entirely true" due to to FCC policies.
The sky still might fall, but for now I hope the folks who claim with complete confidence what will happen in the country and the world might want to reappraise their other claims.
It might also be the investors thought the public would be desperate for a female CEO of such a company. If so they were trying to cash in on the general trend of the political correctness. Luckily that trend seems to have been trumped by the trend to return to common sense, at least in parts of the society.
This is why it's *better* to not fix NN so Dems can visibly fight the righteous fight.
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Over time I began to think that it's true for liberals and conservatives in general, at least the prominent ones.
In 2016 I understood that the difference was more important than I had thought, and that I'd rather deal with assholes who at least don't smell of hypocrisy.
You're making it sound like there's merely resentment underneath the surface and the operatives are exploiting it to turn it into a crisis. Whereas I'm saying there is a half-madness going on and what operatives do is no more than a noise.
It's the difference akin to psychologically pressuring a vulnerable person vs. taunting a deranged person in the street.
Consider that Western societies have reached a level of neuroticism not seen since the time of Victorian England, with its deadly catalyst in the form of social media. Take a look at anything non-Trump, non-politics related to see how quickly people get upset and divided over it. Those can't all be Russians. And even when it is politics, you have say the image of Cathy Griffin holds Trump's mock severed head spreading over social media and people get worked up to a frenzy -- you don't need Russians for that. All this is a phase in the evolution of the collective mind.
When the DNC was hacked in 2016, Democrats themselves said there was nothing of significance in those emails. And there wasn't. With both parties airing their craziness out in the open (with Dems heavily in the lead, by my opinion), I can't imagine what 2018 DNC or RNC email hack would have changed.
Don't know what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is if you set out to solve a problem, and chose a path that can have possibly catastrophic consequences -- meaning one that can lead to ruin -- you evaluate that against the benefits you gain by solving the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course -- to solve a problem you need an inspiration, whose appearance you cannot control, but is more likely to appear when you are relaxed and open for subtle voices in your mind. And you're more likely to be relaxed if you use a tool you love rather than one you are afraid of.
It's more than that -- it's about intelligent interaction not just with the road but with other "brains" so to speak where the rules and modes of interaction are infinite -- vs. the extremely limited rules of interaction with other "brains" as in Go and chess. I guess they'll have to limit the problem to make it closer to Go/chess.
Net Neutrality is/was a law that, in its majestic equality, forced ISPs to not throttle a small startup's service's bandwidth, as well as Google's, so that both the small startup and Google can continue to make profit at the same rate they currently do and compete on the market without favoritism.
There's also the mystery that we live and move and breathe and die and love and somehow think it's not a mystery.
But if you want to stay within the realm of physics, consider this ultimate mystery (within the realm of physics) -- https://blogs.scientificameric...
Seems to me you like mysteries, and you are denying them to yourself.
I'm not sure very many things change anyone's vote these days. I'd expect this one to be rather low on the list.
Yes, please tell us exactly what was in the Mueller Report and what it means. I'm sure you're one of the select inner circle who has actually read the report, and not just heard reports about Barr's obviously biased "summary".
Looks like you are also in the inner circle since you know the summary is "obviously biased" compared to the original report.
If Democrats do political posturing to gain what they think would be points instead of being productive that will be difficult to hide. People aren't stupid.
If Dems really truly believe Net Neutrality is extremely important for our society and have data to back it up and McConell still shoots them down out of spite then he'll be the villain. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
If their Constitutional duty is to not elect people who aren't fit to govern according to one half of voters (and Lanthanide), then they clearly failed.
Linus underestimates the psychological damage you do to yourself when posting with your name. Facebook exploits this human trait like sugar industry exploits our being wired to get as much historically rare carbs as possible.
Secrets, that is.
the moment I read that verse my mind played "merely secret in my dreams." I don't even know if that's the correct lyrics.
Here's the problem: if you approach all those top-down, "we're doing this because climate", it won't stick. People will rebel because they will hate changing hard habits for what to them looks like a speculation (and it is -- there is no way to disprove or even verify the entire climate change theory). The car exhaust, the rivers on fire, the decreased bird populations, all of that was obviously wrong, it smelled like death -- it made living creatures that we are recoil. Not so with climate change: it's an abstract, dry, unbelievable, unrelatable theory to most of us.
Approach all those you mentioned bottom up and focus on reducing pollution; in the process you will likely reduce the carbon footprint. If the theory is correct, great. If it isn't, we will still benefit from less harm to living things.
They should have worked out Trump in the equation for extra clicks: "Trump Administration's policy could trigger extra 8C of global warming." No one could resist, as much as they would hate themselves for clicking.
I asked the manager why the cheap to license, repetitive music had to be blasting all the time even in an empty gym and he said it's the company policy to make it more attractive to customers and it's hard for you but imagine how it is for me he said, I have to listen to it all day.
I have quit that gym since but left wondering, what was that policy based on? What if customers, occasional and frequent, hate it as much as the manager? Why exactly are we all suffering then?
Recently I heard through another trainer that the manager had also quit.
It's statistical processes that make something natural. Eg. butter has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, and previously never by any humans ever. Margarine had been consumed for about 50. So food-wise no butter is the most natural, butter is fairly natural, margarine is the least natural. It's those "very little natural" substances and processes that we for simplicity call unnatural.
How natural something is isn't always correlated to how good it is for you of course, but in the absence of other information and combined with common sense that metric serves as a useful guide.
This is the kind of thing that is much easier to get public support for than the hockey sticks and whatnots. We're wasting not just time and money but also the goodwill of the general public by insisting on climate change models.
This is not about policy. If an honest candidate comes out with a Democratic Socialist platform and people vote for it, that's fine by me. Vox populi, vox dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God, the basic principle of democracy. What I object to is the *mob*, the army of self-righteous leftists trying to shut down anyone who wanted to say why he might vote for Trump or disagree with mandatory gender neutral pronouns or why they think ending NN is not necessarily a bad idea and so on. Far worse than any policy is suppression of free discussion -- then it's guaranteed you'll end up in a hole. My rant is against them.
We went from "killing the NN will be the end of the Internet as we know it" to "unprecedented growth in broadband connectivity last year" not being "entirely true" due to to FCC policies.
The sky still might fall, but for now I hope the folks who claim with complete confidence what will happen in the country and the world might want to reappraise their other claims.
It might also be the investors thought the public would be desperate for a female CEO of such a company. If so they were trying to cash in on the general trend of the political correctness. Luckily that trend seems to have been trumped by the trend to return to common sense, at least in parts of the society.
This is why it's *better* to not fix NN so Dems can visibly fight the righteous fight.
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Over time I began to think that it's true for liberals and conservatives in general, at least the prominent ones.
In 2016 I understood that the difference was more important than I had thought, and that I'd rather deal with assholes who at least don't smell of hypocrisy.
Judging by your upset it sounds like the left is losing the censorship -- thought control, really -- battle. Good.
You're making it sound like there's merely resentment underneath the surface and the operatives are exploiting it to turn it into a crisis. Whereas I'm saying there is a half-madness going on and what operatives do is no more than a noise.
It's the difference akin to psychologically pressuring a vulnerable person vs. taunting a deranged person in the street.
Consider that Western societies have reached a level of neuroticism not seen since the time of Victorian England, with its deadly catalyst in the form of social media. Take a look at anything non-Trump, non-politics related to see how quickly people get upset and divided over it. Those can't all be Russians. And even when it is politics, you have say the image of Cathy Griffin holds Trump's mock severed head spreading over social media and people get worked up to a frenzy -- you don't need Russians for that. All this is a phase in the evolution of the collective mind.
When the DNC was hacked in 2016, Democrats themselves said there was nothing of significance in those emails. And there wasn't. With both parties airing their craziness out in the open (with Dems heavily in the lead, by my opinion), I can't imagine what 2018 DNC or RNC email hack would have changed.
Don't know what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is if you set out to solve a problem, and chose a path that can have possibly catastrophic consequences -- meaning one that can lead to ruin -- you evaluate that against the benefits you gain by solving the problem.