Just because test scores didn't improve doesn't mean that the programme was a waste of money though. Computer skills are essential these days. It would be interesting to know if they picked up useful skills or if it had a detrimental effect on some other important ones.
You can't really compare the a 2D graphics package and a 3D modelling package. Maybe you could compare 2D vector drawing, like Inkscape.
FreeCAD is pretty good. Still developing fast so there are a lot of features that commercial packages have which it lacks, but for a lot of tasks it's fine. In many ways I find it easier to use than apps like Photoshop and GIMP because it's just a case of logically arranging and specifying everything, rather than trying to be artistic with the mouse.
An ad-hominem based on the old "diversity hire" trope, pretty much the worst kind.
Also, since she is complaining about stuff that started in the Bush era and came to light in the Obama era, which she was still studying for her PhD by the way, it's a little unfair to criticise her for not being on TV at the time or not talking about it now when she clearly is.
Snowden's leaks were necessary, even if they did assist America's enemies. The US has not stopped breaking its own laws, and neither have any of the other FIVEEYS countries involved. The abuses continue, and the only way they will ever stop is if we fix the internet so that they simply can't continue.
To do that we needed to know how they work, what the capabilities were. We are all better off for knowing that.
And in the end, I doubt it provided much assistance to any other nation. I'm sure they had a pretty good idea how it worked, since they were doing it themselves. If anything the relative ease with which Snowden took that material and the frequency with which with NSA/CIA tools leak suggest that other nations probably pwned them long before Snowden did.
The Iraq War documents revealed war crimes, re-classifying journalists as "enemy combatants", and the brutality of the new government and security services that were installed. There were details of how over 700 civilians were killed for coming too close to checkpoints, including the mentally ill and pregnant women trying to get to hospital. Much of the Blackwater scandal came from those leaks.
The Guantanamo Bay files revealed that prisoners were held to try to extract intelligence, rather than because they were thought guilty of any crime. That included British citizens. Attempts to gather intelligence on Al Jazeera were revealed, including the imprisonment of one of their staff for six years on bogus grounds.
Afghan War documents included evidence of US war crimes. They also included evidence of US contractors hiring child prostitutes.
The cables she leaked are credited with being the catalyst for the Arab Spring. Kind of hard to deny the significance of that.
Video of the Granai airstrike could have been extremely valuable if it hadn't been lost too.
Manning was unwise to trust Wikileaks to handle the documents. She did try to go directly to respected journalists first. Maybe it's hindsight, maybe it's justified, but there was justification for the leaks and when handled properly some good came of them.
So what happens when a crime is motivated by a hatred of an unprotected class? Not a hate crime, just an ordinary crime?
Yes.
"Hate crime" is just the name of a type of crime that society has judged to be slightly more bad because of the motivation behind it. Like premeditated murder is worse than killing someone in a fit of rage with no prior intent to do so, in the eyes of the law.
Don't try to read anything into the name.
I have to balk at the "protected class" distinction because it seems to rather arbitrarily consider crimes motivated against "unprotected" classes as less serious.
The reason for it is that certain attributes, things like gender and race, are things people have no choice over. Political views are a choice, which football team you support is a choice, being born with a particular colour skin is not. Society considers choices to be fair targets of criticism and even hatred (although of course within the bounds of the law), but bias against things which people have no choice over to be morally repugnant.
I also question how you determine this bias motivation. Is it strictly limited to the circumstances of the crime committed, or does it involve the perpetrators speech or beliefs outside of the crime's commission?
It can indeed be difficult. Well written laws tend to err on the side of caution, requiring the usual standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be met when determining if something is a hate crime.
They get involved in a fight with a member of the group they dislike without showing a bias. and after some investigation (seized cell phone, etc) their private biases become known. Is this a hate crime?
If it is a hate crime or not depends on their motivation, which only they can know for sure unless they happened to communicate to someone that they felt violence towards this group was acceptable and there were no other plausible explanations for why they got into this fight. It would likely be quite hard to prove.
I wasn't taking about child pornography, I was talking about hate speech. Google does not allow it, Gab does. Simple statement of fact, you can verify their respective ToS.
Some people conflate Islam with race. In fact a lot of people do when it comes to discrimination. So there is some desire to protect people from a kind of racial discrimination, but stuff like blasphemy laws can fuck right off.
Where do you draw the line? Wikipedia has a list of people associated with the alt-right, for example, with articles documenting the stuff they have said and done.
swjlist.com has a list of alleged SJWs. Is that okay? Do you still think it's SJWs compiling lists of themselves?
That sounds about right. My Leaf, 30kWh, uses about 5% of the battery if I run the AC constantly. Even that can be mitigated by simply pre-cooling or pre-heating the car while is plugged in.
Is there any evidence to support this? Seems like some groups have been demanding things like blasphemy be banned forever, but Google hasn't done much for them.
So basically nothing. Didn't get rid of Obamacare, the wall hasn't been started or funded, and he missed his own deadline to get a handle on Muslim's visiting the US.
He hasn't managed to come up with a replacement to Obamacare that his own party will accept, and they really, really hate Obamacare.
His trade councils failed and everyone quit. He failed to deal with ISIS in the timeframe he promised.
Remember that photo of his closest advisors and staff in the Oval Office, taken a few weeks after he came to power? Four out of five of them are gone. He has very poor judgement. Sad.
In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.
He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because test scores didn't improve doesn't mean that the programme was a waste of money though. Computer skills are essential these days. It would be interesting to know if they picked up useful skills or if it had a detrimental effect on some other important ones.
You can't really compare the a 2D graphics package and a 3D modelling package. Maybe you could compare 2D vector drawing, like Inkscape.
FreeCAD is pretty good. Still developing fast so there are a lot of features that commercial packages have which it lacks, but for a lot of tasks it's fine. In many ways I find it easier to use than apps like Photoshop and GIMP because it's just a case of logically arranging and specifying everything, rather than trying to be artistic with the mouse.
An ad-hominem based on the old "diversity hire" trope, pretty much the worst kind.
Also, since she is complaining about stuff that started in the Bush era and came to light in the Obama era, which she was still studying for her PhD by the way, it's a little unfair to criticise her for not being on TV at the time or not talking about it now when she clearly is.
Snowden's leaks were necessary, even if they did assist America's enemies. The US has not stopped breaking its own laws, and neither have any of the other FIVEEYS countries involved. The abuses continue, and the only way they will ever stop is if we fix the internet so that they simply can't continue.
To do that we needed to know how they work, what the capabilities were. We are all better off for knowing that.
And in the end, I doubt it provided much assistance to any other nation. I'm sure they had a pretty good idea how it worked, since they were doing it themselves. If anything the relative ease with which Snowden took that material and the frequency with which with NSA/CIA tools leak suggest that other nations probably pwned them long before Snowden did.
The Iraq War documents revealed war crimes, re-classifying journalists as "enemy combatants", and the brutality of the new government and security services that were installed. There were details of how over 700 civilians were killed for coming too close to checkpoints, including the mentally ill and pregnant women trying to get to hospital. Much of the Blackwater scandal came from those leaks.
The Guantanamo Bay files revealed that prisoners were held to try to extract intelligence, rather than because they were thought guilty of any crime. That included British citizens. Attempts to gather intelligence on Al Jazeera were revealed, including the imprisonment of one of their staff for six years on bogus grounds.
Afghan War documents included evidence of US war crimes. They also included evidence of US contractors hiring child prostitutes.
The cables she leaked are credited with being the catalyst for the Arab Spring. Kind of hard to deny the significance of that.
Video of the Granai airstrike could have been extremely valuable if it hadn't been lost too.
Manning was unwise to trust Wikileaks to handle the documents. She did try to go directly to respected journalists first. Maybe it's hindsight, maybe it's justified, but there was justification for the leaks and when handled properly some good came of them.
No. I'm not even sure why you would ask me that. Do you believe it?
So what happens when a crime is motivated by a hatred of an unprotected class? Not a hate crime, just an ordinary crime?
Yes.
"Hate crime" is just the name of a type of crime that society has judged to be slightly more bad because of the motivation behind it. Like premeditated murder is worse than killing someone in a fit of rage with no prior intent to do so, in the eyes of the law.
Don't try to read anything into the name.
I have to balk at the "protected class" distinction because it seems to rather arbitrarily consider crimes motivated against "unprotected" classes as less serious.
The reason for it is that certain attributes, things like gender and race, are things people have no choice over. Political views are a choice, which football team you support is a choice, being born with a particular colour skin is not. Society considers choices to be fair targets of criticism and even hatred (although of course within the bounds of the law), but bias against things which people have no choice over to be morally repugnant.
I also question how you determine this bias motivation. Is it strictly limited to the circumstances of the crime committed, or does it involve the perpetrators speech or beliefs outside of the crime's commission?
It can indeed be difficult. Well written laws tend to err on the side of caution, requiring the usual standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be met when determining if something is a hate crime.
They get involved in a fight with a member of the group they dislike without showing a bias. and after some investigation (seized cell phone, etc) their private biases become known. Is this a hate crime?
If it is a hate crime or not depends on their motivation, which only they can know for sure unless they happened to communicate to someone that they felt violence towards this group was acceptable and there were no other plausible explanations for why they got into this fight. It would likely be quite hard to prove.
But that would be discriminating on the grounds of religion.
Can't people just be tolerant of discrimination?
You say I discriminate on the grounds of religion, and then ask why I don't tolerate discrimination.
I'm not even going to bother.
I didn't even say that "protected class" has a specific meaning.
The rest is just baseless assumption.
Yeah, I don't know if it uses that. It has a heat pump so could cool the battery, but I don't know if it does.
The new model is out next month, will probably have an active cooling system.
I wasn't taking about child pornography, I was talking about hate speech. Google does not allow it, Gab does. Simple statement of fact, you can verify their respective ToS.
Some people conflate Islam with race. In fact a lot of people do when it comes to discrimination. So there is some desire to protect people from a kind of racial discrimination, but stuff like blasphemy laws can fuck right off.
Where do you draw the line? Wikipedia has a list of people associated with the alt-right, for example, with articles documenting the stuff they have said and done.
swjlist.com has a list of alleged SJWs. Is that okay? Do you still think it's SJWs compiling lists of themselves?
The problem here is including religion on the list of protected classes.
Hardcore Christians and Muslims do discriminate on the grounds of sexuality and gender. Their religion should not afford them any protection.
The difference is that those things are banned on Twitter. When they find them they will remove them.
Gab specifically allows things that Google does not allow on the Play store. It will not remove them when made aware.
That sounds about right. My Leaf, 30kWh, uses about 5% of the battery if I run the AC constantly. Even that can be mitigated by simply pre-cooling or pre-heating the car while is plugged in.
Is there any evidence to support this? Seems like some groups have been demanding things like blasphemy be banned forever, but Google hasn't done much for them.
"hate crime" has a specific messing: crime motivated by hatred a protected class.
So basically nothing. Didn't get rid of Obamacare, the wall hasn't been started or funded, and he missed his own deadline to get a handle on Muslim's visiting the US.
He hasn't managed to come up with a replacement to Obamacare that his own party will accept, and they really, really hate Obamacare.
His trade councils failed and everyone quit. He failed to deal with ISIS in the timeframe he promised.
Remember that photo of his closest advisors and staff in the Oval Office, taken a few weeks after he came to power? Four out of five of them are gone. He has very poor judgement. Sad.
I've actually been doing the low carb thing for a while. Thanks for the advice.
Siri uses Bing to answer queries, that's probably a fair proportion of those searches.
That's a bit extreme... Maybe protest by setting yourself on fire or something, but using Bing?!
"Hay Siri, show me some tentacle porn videos."
"Alexa, order more man-size kleenex and a mop."
In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.
He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.
50k/year is insanely low. The UK, population 65 million, wants to get it down to under 100k and that is considered to be economic suicide.
At the moment there are about 80k/year immigrants just for family reunions, before counting students and skilled workers or anyone from the EU.