And yet most of the organized, conscious violence (if you don't count the deranged shooter who killed the Garmin engineer) has come from people who oppose Trump.
Very good point, this doesn't have to be bad at all. We might end up having two kinds of restaurants: one kind serving automated garbage a la McDonalds, convenient and cheap -- there's always a genuine need for that -- and the other offering artisanal food, from a tiny inexpensive Greek gyro place to $500/bottle places on Manhattan. There may not be room for the Olive Gardens of the world, and as you say it may well be for the better.
That is actually very different. The quote means when you have only six lines (written by the hand of a man so to prove its authenticity) a skilled manipulator can interpret them in so many ways as to find a way in which to hang him. The key is six lines -- less than that would be too little to work with, and *more than that would destroy the ambiguity*. With 1000s and 1000s of lines by Podesta and others there was very little doubt what they meant and did. (None of which was terribly spectacular or unexpected though, just a confirmation what everyone thought anyway.)
That said maybe Cardinal Richelieu can be called as the character witness for these journalists...
I never made that argument. Privacy should be protected. What I'm saying is *if* you are a journalist, and *if* you get hacked, and *if* those emails reveal unethical journalistic behavior, don't expect any sympathy from the public. And on the contrary, if anything like you listed is revealed, we will be on your side, because we hate the weak being hit, even if you were a little bit unprofessional.
I'm saying that because this warning appears to preemptively control damage to the reputations of journos who probably know their emails would reveal they have been unethical but they thought it was OK because they were fighting for the "just cause".
It's hard to imagine that case but if they do I'm assuming 1) the public will notice emails are missing which undermines the credibility of the release, and 2) the hackee can release those emails themselves to prove their innocence, which would make hackers look like clowns.
... and there's nothing unprofessional in them, the more embarrassing some personal stuff may be the more sympathy you'll get from the public and against the hackers.
On the other hand if the emails reveal unethical behavior, collusion with one party or one particular candidate of the party that goes against the journalistic integrity, then what I can tell you. Be a better professional.
Somebody on/. mentioned the proposal is in the works to instead of lottery simply sort the H-1B applicants by salary. Hiring a $40K wage slave? Back of the line. A $200K PhD genius? Front of the line. The brilliance of it is forces the companies to compete, driving H-1B wages up for top talent. For everyone else, if you need to gamble on $100K for your H-1B who may not get in the 50,000 limit or you pay $90K to hire locally, then the choice is clear.
Btw for people who say there's no local talent -- I imagine there often is, you may only need to poach them from someone else. That creates a vacuum for the poachee to hire someone else and so on, so the lowest in the rung get entry level positions. This would probably slow progress down but would bring more social stability.
Now we only need to fix that the top talent isn't going to advertising companies but to those who are making useful stuff.
Hence Kaspersky's attempt to make money on something else. The fact that they chose such unproductive and unnecessary activity is a bit worrying. Was there nothing else they could have applied their talent on? Is that the sign that the productivity has run out of room to grow?
... since they didn't have the numbers for it. Still their aqueducts lasted centuries and millennia. Nassim Taleb says a side effects mathematics is to optimize and cut corners, making things fragile. He also quoted a science historian that before the 13th century no more than five persons in Europe knew how to perform a division. But their architects made all those cathedrals that are more or less still standing. (They apparently didn't know geometry either: a triangle was visualized as the head of a horse.)
Not saying don't use mathematics, that would be insane, just listing counterexamples to the claim that life is best lived with mathematics. Any boxing in becomes counterproductive at some level.
I assumed it was, and still couldn't imagine much of a difference re what it ultimately brings to the table.
One of the biggest issue was not having a body. That's a very unnatural experience. Even in dreams you mostly have a body. So I did a search for body in vr and found this -- http://www.polygon.com/virtual...
I'd definitely try that. Still even with that in mind the idea of overwhelming benefits continue to escape me. Hope I'm wrong.
VR has no overwhelming benefits that justify the radically different physical behavior to use it, in my opinion. They say it only needs a killer app, but I think any platform that needed a killer app has never found one. Killer app is what drives the design of the platform.
I tried Gear VR, it was unforgettable, like I was in someone else's dream, and it wasn't pleasant. And I was big on VR in the 90s. If there is a killer app for VR, it's scifi stories, but you don't need hardware for it.
> He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
I imagine he fought Meryl Streep because she was given so much prime time. There were many others who said a lot worse about Trump but who were not prominent. In a way he was battling the media, not the actress.
Fighting the media has been working for Trump so far, unbelievable as it may have seemed to us.
Also sitting long hours affects other decisions we make, if we feel stale we might want some pizza to lift up our mood, vs. wanting/needing something more wholesome after a day of being active.
I hope someone from Google is reading this. The moment I see my results as AMPs I go to bing.com. And not only that but in that moment I fucking hate Google. And those moments keep adding up.
GeopoliticalFutures wrote, "in a revolution, competence is a luxury." Assuming "draining the swamp" of D.C. is really a form of revolution Trump intends to carry out, it's more effective for the end goal to have loyal than to have competent people in his inner circle.
From scanning the paper briefly is that those are people who would be really thrilled if they had actually discovered something useful and they hope this can lead to important new work, presumably with them being asked to follow up on it. It's almost like a marketing piece. "It is possible that the use of wearables will lead to false alarms and overdiagnosis of disease. The number of false alarms will depend upon the threshold that is set, which can be personalized." It doesn't say how it could be personalized, which sounds critical for a claim like that. "Overall, we envision that these devices could be particularly powerful for individuals who are responsible for the health of others (i.e., parents and caregivers), and perhaps also for those who have historically limited health care access, including groups with low income and/or remote geography." We didn't really check with these people, but we're sure it could work for them, and them, and also them!
I hope I'm wrong, and that someone more knowledgeable here can confirm this was good research. Because if not, it would be downright irresponsible to suggest burdening people with sensors for an outcome that could be not just not useful but possibly harmful. That would fall under "academic prostitution". Again I'm hoping this is just my ignorance and laziness to read the article carefully.
I think you need to spend exactly as much as it takes for them to know that as a nation you're ready for them (and that you are not afraid, which overspending would indicate, apart from being wasteful). Again psychology matters. If your were fighting bad weather, earthquakes of epidemic you could go by pure statistics. But with people as your enemy, your level of preparedness helps deter them or invite them to harm you more.
That approach is deeply ingrained in our psyche, and probably for a reason. Going against it no matter what the apparent rationale may be would get you voted out of office (or, in less enlightened times, outright killed).
Slashdot Mirror
And yet most of the organized, conscious violence (if you don't count the deranged shooter who killed the Garmin engineer) has come from people who oppose Trump.
Very good point, this doesn't have to be bad at all. We might end up having two kinds of restaurants: one kind serving automated garbage a la McDonalds, convenient and cheap -- there's always a genuine need for that -- and the other offering artisanal food, from a tiny inexpensive Greek gyro place to $500/bottle places on Manhattan. There may not be room for the Olive Gardens of the world, and as you say it may well be for the better.
I'm beginning to think the best way to get news is to read your local newspaper.
That is actually very different. The quote means when you have only six lines (written by the hand of a man so to prove its authenticity) a skilled manipulator can interpret them in so many ways as to find a way in which to hang him. The key is six lines -- less than that would be too little to work with, and *more than that would destroy the ambiguity*. With 1000s and 1000s of lines by Podesta and others there was very little doubt what they meant and did. (None of which was terribly spectacular or unexpected though, just a confirmation what everyone thought anyway.)
That said maybe Cardinal Richelieu can be called as the character witness for these journalists...
I never made that argument. Privacy should be protected. What I'm saying is *if* you are a journalist, and *if* you get hacked, and *if* those emails reveal unethical journalistic behavior, don't expect any sympathy from the public. And on the contrary, if anything like you listed is revealed, we will be on your side, because we hate the weak being hit, even if you were a little bit unprofessional.
I'm saying that because this warning appears to preemptively control damage to the reputations of journos who probably know their emails would reveal they have been unethical but they thought it was OK because they were fighting for the "just cause".
It's hard to imagine that case but if they do I'm assuming 1) the public will notice emails are missing which undermines the credibility of the release, and 2) the hackee can release those emails themselves to prove their innocence, which would make hackers look like clowns.
... and there's nothing unprofessional in them, the more embarrassing some personal stuff may be the more sympathy you'll get from the public and against the hackers.
On the other hand if the emails reveal unethical behavior, collusion with one party or one particular candidate of the party that goes against the journalistic integrity, then what I can tell you. Be a better professional.
Somebody on /. mentioned the proposal is in the works to instead of lottery simply sort the H-1B applicants by salary. Hiring a $40K wage slave? Back of the line. A $200K PhD genius? Front of the line. The brilliance of it is forces the companies to compete, driving H-1B wages up for top talent. For everyone else, if you need to gamble on $100K for your H-1B who may not get in the 50,000 limit or you pay $90K to hire locally, then the choice is clear.
Btw for people who say there's no local talent -- I imagine there often is, you may only need to poach them from someone else. That creates a vacuum for the poachee to hire someone else and so on, so the lowest in the rung get entry level positions. This would probably slow progress down but would bring more social stability.
Now we only need to fix that the top talent isn't going to advertising companies but to those who are making useful stuff.
Hence Kaspersky's attempt to make money on something else. The fact that they chose such unproductive and unnecessary activity is a bit worrying. Was there nothing else they could have applied their talent on? Is that the sign that the productivity has run out of room to grow?
fucks!
... since they didn't have the numbers for it. Still their aqueducts lasted centuries and millennia. Nassim Taleb says a side effects mathematics is to optimize and cut corners, making things fragile. He also quoted a science historian that before the 13th century no more than five persons in Europe knew how to perform a division. But their architects made all those cathedrals that are more or less still standing. (They apparently didn't know geometry either: a triangle was visualized as the head of a horse.)
Not saying don't use mathematics, that would be insane, just listing counterexamples to the claim that life is best lived with mathematics. Any boxing in becomes counterproductive at some level.
That's what China does.
Fair enough, sounds like the topic needs more research before jumping to conclusions.
Everybody says that. Have you tried it?
I assumed it was, and still couldn't imagine much of a difference re what it ultimately brings to the table.
One of the biggest issue was not having a body. That's a very unnatural experience. Even in dreams you mostly have a body. So I did a search for body in vr and found this -- http://www.polygon.com/virtual...
I'd definitely try that. Still even with that in mind the idea of overwhelming benefits continue to escape me. Hope I'm wrong.
VR has no overwhelming benefits that justify the radically different physical behavior to use it, in my opinion. They say it only needs a killer app, but I think any platform that needed a killer app has never found one. Killer app is what drives the design of the platform.
I tried Gear VR, it was unforgettable, like I was in someone else's dream, and it wasn't pleasant. And I was big on VR in the 90s. If there is a killer app for VR, it's scifi stories, but you don't need hardware for it.
> He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
I imagine he fought Meryl Streep because she was given so much prime time. There were many others who said a lot worse about Trump but who were not prominent. In a way he was battling the media, not the actress.
Fighting the media has been working for Trump so far, unbelievable as it may have seemed to us.
Also sitting long hours affects other decisions we make, if we feel stale we might want some pizza to lift up our mood, vs. wanting/needing something more wholesome after a day of being active.
I hope someone from Google is reading this. The moment I see my results as AMPs I go to bing.com. And not only that but in that moment I fucking hate Google. And those moments keep adding up.
... and if by some miracle it survives and thrives, then try to grab what you think you can.
You could argue that Obama prevented Hillary from being President. She did a lot of harm to world peace even as a SecState.
Although by that logic Trump should get one too. Can you imagine the Millennials' reaction. :-)
GeopoliticalFutures wrote, "in a revolution, competence is a luxury." Assuming "draining the swamp" of D.C. is really a form of revolution Trump intends to carry out, it's more effective for the end goal to have loyal than to have competent people in his inner circle.
From scanning the paper briefly is that those are people who would be really thrilled if they had actually discovered something useful and they hope this can lead to important new work, presumably with them being asked to follow up on it. It's almost like a marketing piece. "It is possible that the use of wearables will lead to false alarms and overdiagnosis of disease. The number of false alarms will depend upon the threshold that is set, which can be personalized." It doesn't say how it could be personalized, which sounds critical for a claim like that. "Overall, we envision that these devices could be particularly powerful for individuals who are responsible for the health of others (i.e., parents and caregivers), and perhaps also for those who have historically limited health care access, including groups with low income and/or remote geography." We didn't really check with these people, but we're sure it could work for them, and them, and also them!
I hope I'm wrong, and that someone more knowledgeable here can confirm this was good research. Because if not, it would be downright irresponsible to suggest burdening people with sensors for an outcome that could be not just not useful but possibly harmful. That would fall under "academic prostitution". Again I'm hoping this is just my ignorance and laziness to read the article carefully.
And you'd be right to do so, as are we to see their acts of terror as evil.
I think you need to spend exactly as much as it takes for them to know that as a nation you're ready for them (and that you are not afraid, which overspending would indicate, apart from being wasteful). Again psychology matters. If your were fighting bad weather, earthquakes of epidemic you could go by pure statistics. But with people as your enemy, your level of preparedness helps deter them or invite them to harm you more.
That approach is deeply ingrained in our psyche, and probably for a reason. Going against it no matter what the apparent rationale may be would get you voted out of office (or, in less enlightened times, outright killed).