Right, and you just know everything because you have a top secret clearance and someone high up gave you permission to blabber about it on the internet. Get real.
The merchant ship is much more massive. It's 100 feet longer than the destroyer and it hit the destroyer in the side.
Modern-day warships are not armored, at least not in the traditional sense where you'd have 20-inch thick steel plating around the ship. It turns out that against bombs and missiles, even that much steel plating is pretty useless, so they traded away protection against old-fashioned naval guns for more speed and agility. After all, there's no point protecting the ship if it couldn't arrive on the battlefield in time to participate.
With the F-35 the plan seems to be to leave them unsure if it is a super-plane or a boondoggle. The skepticism from the public about the plane is a great victory for US military communication.
Right. It's a great victory for communication, but it's a massive failure to secure the budget to buy them. That little trick only works if you're not working under a democracy, because nobody in their right mind would want a $100 million dollar plane if it can't even beat the competition that costs half as much.
The way the machine learning databases are built, it does understand what is being said.
I think the word "understand" has a more general meaning than what you wrote later on. For it to understand what was being said, beyond making grammatical sense of the sentence, it needs to know the abstract concepts behind the words and be able to manipulate them.
For example:
Jeff is a software engineer, Kate is a software engineer, and Larry is also...
Can you finish the sentence?
Most humans could do it with a high degree of accuracy. Some might even find the obvious answer so boring that they try for a more creative one. However, ML is still very far from that.
Since it does not grasp the abstract concepts, its transcription is much more likely to lose meaning than a human transcriber. When talking about network technology for example, a human will not mis-transcribe "NAT" to "gnat", while a machine will.
Hate crimes and bias incidents are a national problem, but there’s no reliable data on the nature or prevalence of the violence. We’re collecting and verifying reports to create a national database for use by journalists, researchers and civil-rights organizations.
The 2016 election left many in America afraid – of intolerance and the violence it can inspire. The need for trustworthy facts on the details and frequency of hate crimes and other incidents born of prejudice has never been more urgent.
At this point, there is simply no reliable national data on hate crimes. And no government agency documents lower-level incidents of harassment and intimidation, such as online or real-life bullying. Documenting and understanding all of these incidents – from hate-inspired murders to anti-Semitic graffiti to racist online trolling – requires new, more creative approaches.
I put the zip and copy to cloud commands in a script, so it exactly the same as git push, but I don't need to spend time setting up a remote depot like git.
How do you know Germans aren't secretly discussing Nazism underground? Racists in all those other European countries are up in arms about the muslim situation. You think they wouldn't have any sympathizers amongst Germans?
There are two sides here: Nazism, and the right side. Pick yours.
My side is the side that allows ideas to be debated, because ideas don't die when you censor them, they die when they're proven wrong. Your side is the side that can only see things is black and white.
Our unnaturally (galaxy-standard) oxygen rich atmosphere has been like this for the last three-point-five BILLION years or so. Our atmosphere has been showing elevated levels of lead and other isotopes for thousands of years, those do not occur naturally. Specially, when the observer has millions or billions of years data of our planets atmospheric contents, our planet should raise an alarm.
Oxygen would be an interesting observation, since it's not natural. However, that doesn't mean aliens would notice it. The first possibility is the galaxy is filled with many planets with oxygen-producing lifeforms, and of the millions of planets the aliens could visit, they did not visit ours by chance. The second possibility is that they are too far from us to see our atmosphere. After all, we've not been able to directly image any exoplanets smaller than Jupiter. Even the Jupiter-sized ones are only visible to us if they're within 500 ly. The third possibility is that they are sending signals at us, but we haven't looked in the right direction or don't recognize it as artificial.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding lead. Those are produced naturally via volcanic eruptions, not to mention since they are trace elements, the aliens would need to have a sample of the atmosphere to detect it.
These vile sentiments will fester regardless, but that very lack of publicity will also keep the numbers of people doing this low. You lose visibility, you lose the lightweights and hangers-on. You lose numbers. You lose clout. You lose efficacy. That is worth a great deal.
For them, right now. However, if you keep pushing minority opinions to the dark web, eventually everyone will end up on the dark web, because everyone has a few unpopular opinions.
Besides, you're delusional if you think killing this one site will actually do anything. As long as demand exists, new ones will pop up to replace it (just like torrent and streaming sites), they'll be bigger and more popular than ever before. And the demand will continue to exist until you address the real problem: poverty and deterioration of white communities in America. In fact, the more you try to shut them down, the more they think you're the enemy, when it's globalization and automation that's really causing the problem.
There are other sources for food besides the in-town grocery stores, you know. Perhaps you have to drive to the next town over. Perhaps you have to get someone else to buy food for you. Perhaps you even have to start raising your own food. Access to grocery stores were you can simply buy whatever food you need is a luxury, and one that the owners of those stores are not in any sense obligated to offer, to the public in general or to you in particular. If you wish to continue receiving the external benefit of easy access to food procured by others at affordable prices, consider how they may feel about your rhetoric and stop taking the benefits of their voluntary cooperation for granted.
That's ridiculous. This is the exact same arguments made by white supremacists for "separate but equal". Why would you (the black man) need to buy food at the white store? There are plenty of black stores the next town over. Ignoring the fact that this is much more than an inconvenience when it's something you need everyday. We decided as a society that that was not the right and made race (and religion, and gender) a protected class. There's no reason we shouldn't protect opinions (of all kinds, including religion) in the same way.
That would suck for anyone who couldn't get their case heard quickly, which is something an individual has no control over. Plus in the US, the only way local laws are overturned is through the appeals process in a higher court. If the fine couldn't be stayed, nobody would ever appeal.
It's the city's money. Why would anyone put any effort into saving it? Especially when all the bus drivers would be angry at you and most parents would prefer if nothing changed.
Nuclear pulse propulsion had this covered since the 1960's. Even if it only goes at 5% the speed of light, you're able to send 800,000 tons up in one giant ship, enough to support a long-lasting space habitat. Too bad the use of nuclear explosives have been banned, even for productive uses of which there are no known substitutes.
You are pre-judging them based on the stereotype (hence, a prejudice), rather than judging them based on their individual traits.
e.g. Blacks on average commit more crimes per capita than other races. That's factual. But if you use that to assume an individual black you've just met is a criminal, that's discrimination.
If the alternative to discrimination is getting stabbed in the back alley, I'll take discrimination any day. People don't have prejudices because they hate black people, I mean, heck, back in the day, everyone was black. No, people discriminate because those that didn't all died a long long time ago.
Consider lions for example. Perhaps not all lions would eat you when you walk past them, but a few of them would. Is it unfair for the non-man-eating lions that most people don't trust them? Of course. But the reality is, the idiot who never learned to avoid lions will eventually get eaten, and thus removing themselves from the gene pool. What's left are people who can recognize big fuzzy things with claws and teeth as dangerous and avoid them appropriately.
Because people think it means they personally are sexists
Don't assume what other people think. The real sexists don't give a fuck, and the non-sexists are only worried of being falsely labeled.
or that increased competition might hurt their prospects
It's not a competition when your opponent is constantly given the upper hand by the referee.
or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.
And yet, blaming "patriarchy" and "sexism" is the exact same thing. Going up against a diversity candidate is just as big of a disadvantage as being female, if not worse.
If you only have RSS installed, your engines and fuel tanks will be far too underpowered to make it. Not to mention reentry heat would be unrealistically high and you'd burn up no matter what you do.
More to the point, the memo is talking about averages. One woman's achievements, however extraordinary, is not going to raise the average very much. Even now, the majority of critical breakthroughs in science come from men (look at this list and count how many men there are vs. women).
We already know there are social reasons for this disparity and are doing things to correct it through things like outreach, scholarships, advertising and other programs targeted at young women. Now if there are biological reasons for the disparity as well, then we should try to understand them and work around those too. But the moment these reasons are suggested, everyone blows their tops and lynches the messenger. How can we ever fix the problem if it can't be talked about?
As I understand it from the original sentence, "consequences" is referring to personal or financial harm, not social change or dialogue, which is the intended result of the speech.
Regarding your second point, I don't think changing one's world view is so easy. If it was, religion wouldn't be in a protected class. Why should belief in a statement like "women are worse at software engineering" be any easier to change than "God created the earth in 7 days"? The first one actually has some data that could potentially support it, the second has absolutely none!
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and you just know everything because you have a top secret clearance and someone high up gave you permission to blabber about it on the internet. Get real.
The merchant ship is much more massive. It's 100 feet longer than the destroyer and it hit the destroyer in the side.
Modern-day warships are not armored, at least not in the traditional sense where you'd have 20-inch thick steel plating around the ship. It turns out that against bombs and missiles, even that much steel plating is pretty useless, so they traded away protection against old-fashioned naval guns for more speed and agility. After all, there's no point protecting the ship if it couldn't arrive on the battlefield in time to participate.
30,000 car accident deaths a year. Enemy action or human nature?
With the F-35 the plan seems to be to leave them unsure if it is a super-plane or a boondoggle. The skepticism from the public about the plane is a great victory for US military communication.
Right. It's a great victory for communication, but it's a massive failure to secure the budget to buy them. That little trick only works if you're not working under a democracy, because nobody in their right mind would want a $100 million dollar plane if it can't even beat the competition that costs half as much.
Four times is some form of attack combined with incompetent response.
By that logic, the 30,000 or so deadly car accidents we have each year is rock solid evidence that someone is out to get us.
Also, I made 3 typo's while typing this. Someone is hacking my keyboard!
The way the machine learning databases are built, it does understand what is being said.
I think the word "understand" has a more general meaning than what you wrote later on. For it to understand what was being said, beyond making grammatical sense of the sentence, it needs to know the abstract concepts behind the words and be able to manipulate them.
For example:
Jeff is a software engineer, Kate is a software engineer, and Larry is also ...
Can you finish the sentence?
Most humans could do it with a high degree of accuracy. Some might even find the obvious answer so boring that they try for a more creative one. However, ML is still very far from that.
Since it does not grasp the abstract concepts, its transcription is much more likely to lose meaning than a human transcriber. When talking about network technology for example, a human will not mis-transcribe "NAT" to "gnat", while a machine will.
Hate crimes and bias incidents are a national problem, but there’s no reliable data on the nature or prevalence of the violence. We’re collecting and verifying reports to create a national database for use by journalists, researchers and civil-rights organizations.
The 2016 election left many in America afraid – of intolerance and the violence it can inspire. The need for trustworthy facts on the details and frequency of hate crimes and other incidents born of prejudice has never been more urgent.
At this point, there is simply no reliable national data on hate crimes. And no government agency documents lower-level incidents of harassment and intimidation, such as online or real-life bullying. Documenting and understanding all of these incidents – from hate-inspired murders to anti-Semitic graffiti to racist online trolling – requires new, more creative approaches.
I put the zip and copy to cloud commands in a script, so it exactly the same as git push, but I don't need to spend time setting up a remote depot like git.
I don't understand why all email shouldn't just be encrypted and signed by default. The computing power that would cost is negligible.
You don't even need a central repo. For small projects I just zip the .git directory and upload it to Dropbox or Google drive once or twice a week.
There are two sides here: Nazism, and the right side. Pick yours.
My side is the side that allows ideas to be debated, because ideas don't die when you censor them, they die when they're proven wrong. Your side is the side that can only see things is black and white.
Our unnaturally (galaxy-standard) oxygen rich atmosphere has been like this for the last three-point-five BILLION years or so. Our atmosphere has been showing elevated levels of lead and other isotopes for thousands of years, those do not occur naturally. Specially, when the observer has millions or billions of years data of our planets atmospheric contents, our planet should raise an alarm.
Oxygen would be an interesting observation, since it's not natural. However, that doesn't mean aliens would notice it. The first possibility is the galaxy is filled with many planets with oxygen-producing lifeforms, and of the millions of planets the aliens could visit, they did not visit ours by chance. The second possibility is that they are too far from us to see our atmosphere. After all, we've not been able to directly image any exoplanets smaller than Jupiter. Even the Jupiter-sized ones are only visible to us if they're within 500 ly. The third possibility is that they are sending signals at us, but we haven't looked in the right direction or don't recognize it as artificial.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding lead. Those are produced naturally via volcanic eruptions, not to mention since they are trace elements, the aliens would need to have a sample of the atmosphere to detect it.
These vile sentiments will fester regardless, but that very lack of publicity will also keep the numbers of people doing this low. You lose visibility, you lose the lightweights and hangers-on. You lose numbers. You lose clout. You lose efficacy. That is worth a great deal.
For them, right now. However, if you keep pushing minority opinions to the dark web, eventually everyone will end up on the dark web, because everyone has a few unpopular opinions.
Besides, you're delusional if you think killing this one site will actually do anything. As long as demand exists, new ones will pop up to replace it (just like torrent and streaming sites), they'll be bigger and more popular than ever before. And the demand will continue to exist until you address the real problem: poverty and deterioration of white communities in America. In fact, the more you try to shut them down, the more they think you're the enemy, when it's globalization and automation that's really causing the problem.
Do you have a problem with ISIS recruitment websites, including those showing beheadings and calling for death to apostates?
They should have a site, and we should have everyone watch those videos so they can see what ISIS is really about - the killing of innocent people.
It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The court has long retracted that argument. Not to mention the guy they applied this rule to was distributing anti-war fliers. Source.
There are other sources for food besides the in-town grocery stores, you know. Perhaps you have to drive to the next town over. Perhaps you have to get someone else to buy food for you. Perhaps you even have to start raising your own food. Access to grocery stores were you can simply buy whatever food you need is a luxury, and one that the owners of those stores are not in any sense obligated to offer, to the public in general or to you in particular. If you wish to continue receiving the external benefit of easy access to food procured by others at affordable prices, consider how they may feel about your rhetoric and stop taking the benefits of their voluntary cooperation for granted.
That's ridiculous. This is the exact same arguments made by white supremacists for "separate but equal". Why would you (the black man) need to buy food at the white store? There are plenty of black stores the next town over. Ignoring the fact that this is much more than an inconvenience when it's something you need everyday. We decided as a society that that was not the right and made race (and religion, and gender) a protected class. There's no reason we shouldn't protect opinions (of all kinds, including religion) in the same way.
If they're not targeting places where men congregate, then they're not really trying, are they?
Dumbasses... should've used land mines instead.
That would suck for anyone who couldn't get their case heard quickly, which is something an individual has no control over. Plus in the US, the only way local laws are overturned is through the appeals process in a higher court. If the fine couldn't be stayed, nobody would ever appeal.
It's the city's money. Why would anyone put any effort into saving it? Especially when all the bus drivers would be angry at you and most parents would prefer if nothing changed.
Nuclear pulse propulsion had this covered since the 1960's. Even if it only goes at 5% the speed of light, you're able to send 800,000 tons up in one giant ship, enough to support a long-lasting space habitat. Too bad the use of nuclear explosives have been banned, even for productive uses of which there are no known substitutes.
You are pre-judging them based on the stereotype (hence, a prejudice), rather than judging them based on their individual traits. e.g. Blacks on average commit more crimes per capita than other races. That's factual. But if you use that to assume an individual black you've just met is a criminal, that's discrimination.
If the alternative to discrimination is getting stabbed in the back alley, I'll take discrimination any day. People don't have prejudices because they hate black people, I mean, heck, back in the day, everyone was black. No, people discriminate because those that didn't all died a long long time ago.
Consider lions for example. Perhaps not all lions would eat you when you walk past them, but a few of them would. Is it unfair for the non-man-eating lions that most people don't trust them? Of course. But the reality is, the idiot who never learned to avoid lions will eventually get eaten, and thus removing themselves from the gene pool. What's left are people who can recognize big fuzzy things with claws and teeth as dangerous and avoid them appropriately.
Because people think it means they personally are sexists
Don't assume what other people think. The real sexists don't give a fuck, and the non-sexists are only worried of being falsely labeled.
or that increased competition might hurt their prospects
It's not a competition when your opponent is constantly given the upper hand by the referee.
or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.
And yet, blaming "patriarchy" and "sexism" is the exact same thing. Going up against a diversity candidate is just as big of a disadvantage as being female, if not worse.
If you only have RSS installed, your engines and fuel tanks will be far too underpowered to make it. Not to mention reentry heat would be unrealistically high and you'd burn up no matter what you do.
More to the point, the memo is talking about averages. One woman's achievements, however extraordinary, is not going to raise the average very much. Even now, the majority of critical breakthroughs in science come from men (look at this list and count how many men there are vs. women).
We already know there are social reasons for this disparity and are doing things to correct it through things like outreach, scholarships, advertising and other programs targeted at young women. Now if there are biological reasons for the disparity as well, then we should try to understand them and work around those too. But the moment these reasons are suggested, everyone blows their tops and lynches the messenger. How can we ever fix the problem if it can't be talked about?
So according to you, being a woman is basically disabled.
As I understand it from the original sentence, "consequences" is referring to personal or financial harm, not social change or dialogue, which is the intended result of the speech.
Regarding your second point, I don't think changing one's world view is so easy. If it was, religion wouldn't be in a protected class. Why should belief in a statement like "women are worse at software engineering" be any easier to change than "God created the earth in 7 days"? The first one actually has some data that could potentially support it, the second has absolutely none!