I have two kids a similar age with similar physical activity levels. One eats a lot more than the other, but stays skinnier. There are other factors at work beyond weight and exercise that affect metabolism. These researchers will have a powerful $$$ motivation to shed light on these other factors, and I say more power to them.
"Oh hi, random person of the opposite sex. You don't mind if my hand rests against your hip and frequently gravitates to your crotch while I sleep here, do you?"
I thought airline seats were already bad for violating personal space, but the way the picture shows it, this would expand new horizons of awkward.
Not only are there many people who will continue to share such documents on peer to peer networks, but also it may surprise our Wise and Venerable Legislators to learn that there are foreign web hosts not subject to US law. You can't really ban anything from the internet or keep anything "offline".
Wait a second. Why are you talking about "studies" in your post above? I thought some questions should never be asked, and even to ask them is bigoted and wrong. So why would there be studies?
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No.
Glad you were able to fill us in on that.:)
And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion.
There are studies that show pretty much everything in the social sciences that somebody wants to show, so if you haven't seen a particular result, it's pretty much for lack of looking. (And yes, that is a pathetic state of affairs in social sciences.) I'd suggest that the "equality of marriages" with regard to child development outcomes is just as firmly established as that increases in CO2 lead to more frequent and intense hurricanes. The science is settled, people!/sarcasm
Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
Nah, that's a straw man. I will readily agree that adopted kids can turn out really great, and better in many cases than with their lousy birth parents. A selection of data points doesn't refute the existence of a trend in a noisy dataset.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
You are a real jerk, aren't you? Since you prefer insults to courteous debate, I have no interest in engaging further with you.
Thought experiment for you. It's really important to enable women to participate in traditionally male-dominated areas involving leadership in society, right? I'm going to hazard a guess that you agree with that. So a question: is that just so the ladies aren't left out, or can an argument also be made the actual quality of these areas of society will be improved in the big picture by the participation of women? It's not unreasonable to argue the latter, and many reasonable people make such arguments.
So just take the above and apply it to child rearing, and I've successfully made my case that it's at least an issue worth considering/discussing. Diversity minus women equals "???". I suggest that the trolls in this conversation are those who say there's nothing to talk about, and everybody who disagrees with them is an idiot. I believe that would be you?
The people against gay marriage certainly are not arguing for what is best for the children
Actually, many such arguments have been made, so not sure what "people" you are referencing here. Can you be more specific?
When a person argues against raising a child in a family that loves and supports each other, all while arguing for raising children in abusive families where the children aren't fed, clothed, schooled, and thrown out on the street to work and fend for themselves at age 16, I see absolutely NO situation where "what is best for the children" matters at all to be argued about.
You're entitled to your opinion; I think there's still material for debate here. I agree that broken homes, single parent homes, and abusive homes are not the model we want to aim at, and I think many of the children who grew up in such homes would agree with me. So let's not just concede failure from the start and say "anything goes". When answering the question "what is marriage", with regard to the state's interest in it, the answer will largely involve the welfare of children. Think of the children, dude!:P
Well, in my defense, it's hard to imagine a sane person getting worked up over something as petty as whether or not some people they know nothing about can marry.
Hmmm: "hard to imagine"... "a sane person"... "they know nothing about".
You seem pretty confident that you know what's best for raising children, and people who disagree with you know nothing. Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father? Do you think it (can) make a difference whether a real, live woman is involved in the parenting of a child? How about a real, live man? Of course generalizations and simplifications are often wrong, but sometimes there is signal in the data that can be studied if one is willing to think honestly about it. (Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it, and rewards mindless, one-sided drivel like you wrote above.)
Wow. Just... wow. Given what I've been through recently, I can't believe that the AC above would say "you must never use pronouns on the internet". To call me out individually like that was inexcusably offensive. This AC should be summarily shamed out of Slashdot.
Awful lot of trolls post in favor of citizens united. Didn't know the Koch Brothers bot army was running so well.
Of course you yourself are trolling here. It is perfectly reasonable (though still subject to debate) to agree with the SCOTUS that businesses should be allowed free speech, and to characterize me and others as Koch Brothers bots is... well, it's pretty lame trolling, notwithstanding your current "+4 Insightful". I don't typically feed trolls, so this comment is directed at those who mis-moderated your post.:)
Isn't it wonderful to simplify an issue down to one sentence? You can solve all the problems in the world that way./sarcasm
So answer me this: is a newspaper recommendation of a political candidate speech? Deny companies political speech, and you have all kinds of unpleasant fallout. You are suggesting censoring the NYT. (Were you aware of that?)
The solution to speech you don't like is not censorship, it's more speech. I have no problem with newspapers editorializing on political subjects and recommending candidates for office. I further have no problem with people banding together to make their joined voice louder by creating documentaries, websites, etc. The slippery slope of trying to chop people down to all be the same sizes is ultimately misguided and works against free speech.
If genetic modifications ever emerge as the medical miracle they're supposed to, there will be no stopping the use of the technology. All you need is for a country to refuse to enforce or recognize the patents, and presto -- the world's foremost medical tourism destination. I sort of despise the idea of patenting features of nature, so perhaps a bit of schadenfreude there.
I have no doubt the information will be spread, too. If Snowden can be widely hailed as a hero for leaking the NSA's rampant cybercrime, just imagine the pats on the back for the guy who leaks the key to cancer. (Yeah, yeah, along with threats of jail time, so he'll have to light out for Cambodia or whatever.)
Indeed. Unfortunately, the prosecution of crimes committed by the federal government is a decision that is typically up to the federal government, and they almost always decide to give themselves a pass. The NSA's history of sabotaging public security standards and overreaching in their spying is (if not legally then at least effectively) protected by sovereign immunity.
And now some people are estimating how many billions of dollars the US economy is losing as the world shops elsewhere for cloud computing due to the NSA's excessive and unjustifiable cybercrimes. I'd love to see a bunch of people fired in Fort Meade, but I'm sure they'll just continue to blame it on Snowden.
The NSA has been hacking pretty much everybody in the world and their little sister, so nobody should be shocked when the same thing happens to us.
The real kicker is the perennial lecture from clueless politicians about how we should put back doors into all our private sector encryption so law enforcement can take a peek whenever it likes. Because our information will be safe with the government. *snort*
Counterexample: I've frequently been called a denier and modded down with what I refer to as "-1 (disagree)" over AGW. I don't post as AC. I enjoy the discussions, and wish for a bit more civility and less ad hominem.
Anyway, it's the first time I've seen a Star Trek-like computer working for real (well, the same special conditions could exist in a spaceship).
Not sure what you mean by this, my dear AC. AplSiri / GNow / MSCortana work the same way and can be used to create similar demos. Heck, there are a lot of similar products out there -- the Amazon Echo is even more Star Trek-like since it's always on & listening.
Slashdot Mirror
"weight and exercise" -- I meant diet and exercise. It was a Freudian hip.
I have two kids a similar age with similar physical activity levels. One eats a lot more than the other, but stays skinnier. There are other factors at work beyond weight and exercise that affect metabolism. These researchers will have a powerful $$$ motivation to shed light on these other factors, and I say more power to them.
"Oh hi, random person of the opposite sex. You don't mind if my hand rests against your hip and frequently gravitates to your crotch while I sleep here, do you?"
I thought airline seats were already bad for violating personal space, but the way the picture shows it, this would expand new horizons of awkward.
Not only are there many people who will continue to share such documents on peer to peer networks, but also it may surprise our Wise and Venerable Legislators to learn that there are foreign web hosts not subject to US law. You can't really ban anything from the internet or keep anything "offline".
(Hands AK Marc even more rope in morbid curiosity to see what happens next.)
Wait a second. Why are you talking about "studies" in your post above? I thought some questions should never be asked, and even to ask them is bigoted and wrong. So why would there be studies?
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No.
Glad you were able to fill us in on that. :)
And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion.
There are studies that show pretty much everything in the social sciences that somebody wants to show, so if you haven't seen a particular result, it's pretty much for lack of looking. (And yes, that is a pathetic state of affairs in social sciences.) I'd suggest that the "equality of marriages" with regard to child development outcomes is just as firmly established as that increases in CO2 lead to more frequent and intense hurricanes. The science is settled, people! /sarcasm
Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
Nah, that's a straw man. I will readily agree that adopted kids can turn out really great, and better in many cases than with their lousy birth parents. A selection of data points doesn't refute the existence of a trend in a noisy dataset.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
You are a real jerk, aren't you? Since you prefer insults to courteous debate, I have no interest in engaging further with you.
Thought experiment for you. It's really important to enable women to participate in traditionally male-dominated areas involving leadership in society, right? I'm going to hazard a guess that you agree with that. So a question: is that just so the ladies aren't left out, or can an argument also be made the actual quality of these areas of society will be improved in the big picture by the participation of women? It's not unreasonable to argue the latter, and many reasonable people make such arguments.
So just take the above and apply it to child rearing, and I've successfully made my case that it's at least an issue worth considering/discussing. Diversity minus women equals "???". I suggest that the trolls in this conversation are those who say there's nothing to talk about, and everybody who disagrees with them is an idiot. I believe that would be you?
Not either-or, but all of the above. The state's interest in defining marriage has a lot to do with kids.
The people against gay marriage certainly are not arguing for what is best for the children
Actually, many such arguments have been made, so not sure what "people" you are referencing here. Can you be more specific?
When a person argues against raising a child in a family that loves and supports each other, all while arguing for raising children in abusive families where the children aren't fed, clothed, schooled, and thrown out on the street to work and fend for themselves at age 16, I see absolutely NO situation where "what is best for the children" matters at all to be argued about.
You're entitled to your opinion; I think there's still material for debate here. I agree that broken homes, single parent homes, and abusive homes are not the model we want to aim at, and I think many of the children who grew up in such homes would agree with me. So let's not just concede failure from the start and say "anything goes". When answering the question "what is marriage", with regard to the state's interest in it, the answer will largely involve the welfare of children. Think of the children, dude! :P
If you read what I wrote, you will notice I am in favor of nuanced discussion, not against it.
Well, in my defense, it's hard to imagine a sane person getting worked up over something as petty as whether or not some people they know nothing about can marry.
Hmmm: "hard to imagine"... "a sane person"... "they know nothing about".
You seem pretty confident that you know what's best for raising children, and people who disagree with you know nothing. Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father? Do you think it (can) make a difference whether a real, live woman is involved in the parenting of a child? How about a real, live man? Of course generalizations and simplifications are often wrong, but sometimes there is signal in the data that can be studied if one is willing to think honestly about it. (Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it, and rewards mindless, one-sided drivel like you wrote above.)
Wow. Just... wow. Given what I've been through recently, I can't believe that the AC above would say "you must never use pronouns on the internet". To call me out individually like that was inexcusably offensive. This AC should be summarily shamed out of Slashdot.
Awful lot of trolls post in favor of citizens united. Didn't know the Koch Brothers bot army was running so well.
Of course you yourself are trolling here. It is perfectly reasonable (though still subject to debate) to agree with the SCOTUS that businesses should be allowed free speech, and to characterize me and others as Koch Brothers bots is... well, it's pretty lame trolling, notwithstanding your current "+4 Insightful". I don't typically feed trolls, so this comment is directed at those who mis-moderated your post. :)
Isn't it wonderful to simplify an issue down to one sentence? You can solve all the problems in the world that way. /sarcasm
So answer me this: is a newspaper recommendation of a political candidate speech? Deny companies political speech, and you have all kinds of unpleasant fallout. You are suggesting censoring the NYT. (Were you aware of that?)
The solution to speech you don't like is not censorship, it's more speech. I have no problem with newspapers editorializing on political subjects and recommending candidates for office. I further have no problem with people banding together to make their joined voice louder by creating documentaries, websites, etc. The slippery slope of trying to chop people down to all be the same sizes is ultimately misguided and works against free speech.
If genetic modifications ever emerge as the medical miracle they're supposed to, there will be no stopping the use of the technology. All you need is for a country to refuse to enforce or recognize the patents, and presto -- the world's foremost medical tourism destination. I sort of despise the idea of patenting features of nature, so perhaps a bit of schadenfreude there.
I have no doubt the information will be spread, too. If Snowden can be widely hailed as a hero for leaking the NSA's rampant cybercrime, just imagine the pats on the back for the guy who leaks the key to cancer. (Yeah, yeah, along with threats of jail time, so he'll have to light out for Cambodia or whatever.)
"Can't I just be a programmer and not understand math?"
Did you mean: "Are there any search engines left that try to think for me?" Try one of the following:
https://google.com
https://bing.com
https://duckduckgo.com
https://dogpile.com
Indeed. Unfortunately, the prosecution of crimes committed by the federal government is a decision that is typically up to the federal government, and they almost always decide to give themselves a pass. The NSA's history of sabotaging public security standards and overreaching in their spying is (if not legally then at least effectively) protected by sovereign immunity.
And now some people are estimating how many billions of dollars the US economy is losing as the world shops elsewhere for cloud computing due to the NSA's excessive and unjustifiable cybercrimes. I'd love to see a bunch of people fired in Fort Meade, but I'm sure they'll just continue to blame it on Snowden.
The NSA has been hacking pretty much everybody in the world and their little sister, so nobody should be shocked when the same thing happens to us.
The real kicker is the perennial lecture from clueless politicians about how we should put back doors into all our private sector encryption so law enforcement can take a peek whenever it likes. Because our information will be safe with the government. *snort*
Counterexample: I've frequently been called a denier and modded down with what I refer to as "-1 (disagree)" over AGW. I don't post as AC. I enjoy the discussions, and wish for a bit more civility and less ad hominem.
I wasn't expecting people to actually answer my question, but it's pretty awesome that some did. Cheers! :)
millions of simultaneous users ... Cortana support(s ed.)
Citation needed.
*snort* :D OK, that was funny. Here's one that leaves it politely ambiguous whether this scaling is verified in actual user base or simulation: http://savas.me/2014/04/reactive-computing-at-the-heart-of-cortana/
Anyway, it's the first time I've seen a Star Trek-like computer working for real (well, the same special conditions could exist in a spaceship).
Not sure what you mean by this, my dear AC. AplSiri / GNow / MSCortana work the same way and can be used to create similar demos. Heck, there are a lot of similar products out there -- the Amazon Echo is even more Star Trek-like since it's always on & listening.
Have you really never played with Siri before?