That structural patriarchy shit is still very mainstream in the college community. It's bullshit, of course, but it is clever bullshit. See, you can't ever disprove it because there will always be some layer of patriarchy to unfold. And it always kind of ends up at "it is men's fault. But there is nothing specifically you, a well-meaning male can do, because the damage is already done, and you should just suck it."
Also on the same curriculum is privilege, where anything anyone in the "dominant" group gets they got because society is set up to make it easy for them, and anything the non dominant groups achieve was way harder for them to achieve because they had all this privilege to overcome.
It's the same bullshit the GOP tells its followers: "you are poor, miserable slobs because the Demmy-crats done it to y'all."
Wouldn't it be "funny" if pulsars were really buoys screaming at us to get the fuck out of the way of something. Anyway, is there any planning into putting a radio telescope on the far side of the moon?
Part of the buffer problem is that most sites aren't just one HTTP connection with one server, asking for files. You look down at the little status bar, and it is going all over the place looking for this or that little drab of content and ads. Each one introducing some delay somewhere.
The reason that doesn't stand up is because they both don't have exactly the same goals. It's like going to a prostitute- the prostitute will act like they are enjoying it because that's what gets the john to come back. When you incentivize the lie, that's what you get. It's pretty clear that when people are under duress, their ability to think of the future narrows. They will start to say whatever works to stop the pain now, tomorrow's pain be damned.
Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.
That just seems like common sense to me. People are generally going to be more truthful when they aren't under stress. Unfortunately, there is such a culture of seething hate and disgust for "bad guys" in law enforcement these days that it would be very hard to train people to do this.
It reminds me of an investigative technique (whose name I'm forgetting, but most detectives go to a class on it) where they are trained to apply levels of stress and ignorance onto subjects to try to determine a general idea of guilt/suspicion. A non guilty person will react pretty predictably- the more ignorant an investigator gets, a non-guilty subject will start to react with indignation. "Why did you steal that bracelet?" = "I didn't steal the bracelet!" and then "Were you going to pawn it for drug money?" = "What the fuck is the matter with you?" Whereas a more guilty subject will react differently. Evasion, twisting, inappropriate outbursts, etc. "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "Fuck you, pig!" and "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "I sure didn't steal any bracelets."
There is also a thing that lots of people do when they are lying, which is to not quite answer the question directly, or to answer with reservations so that they aren't technically lying. "Do you know what happened to the bracelet?" "There is a bracelet missing?" "Yes, do you know what happened to it?" "What bracelet are you talking about?" "The one missing from the bureau." "If that bracelet is missing, I don't know where it is right now." "But did you take it?" "I don't think I've taken any bracelets." "Answer the question." "I'm at work every day between 9-5, how could I take it?" "You could have taken it any other time." "Not my problem if people don't keep track of their stuff." "DID YOU TAKE THE BRACELET?" "What would I do with a bracelet?" And so on.
That's what was most disgusting about the "waterboarding" hubbub of a few years ago. The self-styled moral authorities were tripping over themselves to justify it. The same ones who were screaming about moral relativism one or two propaganda cycles prior.
It will only work if they all have dramatic names. The perp will be a surly woman in vaguely goth-looking clothes names "Vampira Desperaux". The investigators must all have slightly foreign accents and have names like "Ella Peeters", "Jayden St. Marteens", "Logan Murphy" and "Ethan Esposito" (2 for 1! is he Italian or Hispanic?)
Anyone under 30 is, and most people over 30 prefer to think of the Irish as friendly drunks who will build you shoddy walls or install a door backwards.
There is a distinction you forgot. Are the terrorists doing it for the lulz, like the DC snipper, or because they want some kind of political change, like the IRA.
The problem is that they probably DID pay 3x the cost of the original. I see lots of HP Vectras and Dell Optiplexes hooked up to $100,000 lab devices, where they paid $10,000 for the damned computer.
I have a feeling that the community of people bitching about loss of support does not intersect with the community of people willing to pay for same. At least not to the extent MS can actually make any money keeping a bugfix team together. Fifteen years of support and bugfixes for a $100 OS seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Isn't this a situation where it would behoove a designer to use a more solid OS, like BSD or whatever actual UNIX is still available? On the other hand, I don't think the problem is the Linux kernel so much, but all the awful packages maintained by well meaning feature sluts?
The problem with so many professions is that people don't respect the experience necessary. It isn't about being able to write a few lines of code, it is about knowing which lines of code to change.
A proper 3D film would immerse you in a way that makes the plane of the screen irrelevant. Sort of like IMAX. If ALL you can see is what's on the screen, it is easier to be immersed.
There is a theory that goes along with what you said, that when the brain has to fill in hidden information, it does it according to its own tastes and preferences. When reading a book, you make the characters look like how you want them to look. When watching a BW film, we fill in colors that work for us. When watching a 2D film, we intuit the depth from other cues. And so on. When we are presented with everything, our imagination doesn't have much work to do, so the experience hinges on whether the work happens to tweak our preferences or not.
And at the same time, when presented with a more limited medium, the creator of the work has to work harder to tell the story. That's where raw talent comes out. It's much more fun to witness someone with talent working around limitations than it is to witness a hack let loose with no restrictions.
But multiple factors increase the entropy greatly. If someone guesses my number and burns a card with it, or steals my card, they have to know my zip code to be able to use it. If they got my wallet, it's probably easy. (Not in my case, as my CC stuff is billed to a different zip code, but I digress.) But it adds a level of complication to the transaction.
Slashdot Mirror
That structural patriarchy shit is still very mainstream in the college community. It's bullshit, of course, but it is clever bullshit. See, you can't ever disprove it because there will always be some layer of patriarchy to unfold. And it always kind of ends up at "it is men's fault. But there is nothing specifically you, a well-meaning male can do, because the damage is already done, and you should just suck it."
Also on the same curriculum is privilege, where anything anyone in the "dominant" group gets they got because society is set up to make it easy for them, and anything the non dominant groups achieve was way harder for them to achieve because they had all this privilege to overcome.
It's the same bullshit the GOP tells its followers: "you are poor, miserable slobs because the Demmy-crats done it to y'all."
I like how the great intelligence that managed to build the probe didn't think to take "V GER" to the carwash.
Wouldn't it be "funny" if pulsars were really buoys screaming at us to get the fuck out of the way of something. Anyway, is there any planning into putting a radio telescope on the far side of the moon?
Jeff Goldblum playing a muttering, but ultimately heroic, professor is also required.
And it's not really like the President had much to do with the Berlin wall coming down.
Pings might be low latency, what about full packets?
Part of the buffer problem is that most sites aren't just one HTTP connection with one server, asking for files. You look down at the little status bar, and it is going all over the place looking for this or that little drab of content and ads. Each one introducing some delay somewhere.
The reason that doesn't stand up is because they both don't have exactly the same goals. It's like going to a prostitute- the prostitute will act like they are enjoying it because that's what gets the john to come back. When you incentivize the lie, that's what you get. It's pretty clear that when people are under duress, their ability to think of the future narrows. They will start to say whatever works to stop the pain now, tomorrow's pain be damned.
Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.
That just seems like common sense to me. People are generally going to be more truthful when they aren't under stress. Unfortunately, there is such a culture of seething hate and disgust for "bad guys" in law enforcement these days that it would be very hard to train people to do this.
It reminds me of an investigative technique (whose name I'm forgetting, but most detectives go to a class on it) where they are trained to apply levels of stress and ignorance onto subjects to try to determine a general idea of guilt/suspicion. A non guilty person will react pretty predictably- the more ignorant an investigator gets, a non-guilty subject will start to react with indignation. "Why did you steal that bracelet?" = "I didn't steal the bracelet!" and then "Were you going to pawn it for drug money?" = "What the fuck is the matter with you?" Whereas a more guilty subject will react differently. Evasion, twisting, inappropriate outbursts, etc. "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "Fuck you, pig!" and "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "I sure didn't steal any bracelets."
There is also a thing that lots of people do when they are lying, which is to not quite answer the question directly, or to answer with reservations so that they aren't technically lying. "Do you know what happened to the bracelet?" "There is a bracelet missing?" "Yes, do you know what happened to it?" "What bracelet are you talking about?" "The one missing from the bureau." "If that bracelet is missing, I don't know where it is right now." "But did you take it?" "I don't think I've taken any bracelets." "Answer the question." "I'm at work every day between 9-5, how could I take it?" "You could have taken it any other time." "Not my problem if people don't keep track of their stuff." "DID YOU TAKE THE BRACELET?" "What would I do with a bracelet?" And so on.
So much for rights that are inalienable...
That's what was most disgusting about the "waterboarding" hubbub of a few years ago. The self-styled moral authorities were tripping over themselves to justify it. The same ones who were screaming about moral relativism one or two propaganda cycles prior.
It will only work if they all have dramatic names. The perp will be a surly woman in vaguely goth-looking clothes names "Vampira Desperaux". The investigators must all have slightly foreign accents and have names like "Ella Peeters", "Jayden St. Marteens", "Logan Murphy" and "Ethan Esposito" (2 for 1! is he Italian or Hispanic?)
Anyone under 30 is, and most people over 30 prefer to think of the Irish as friendly drunks who will build you shoddy walls or install a door backwards.
Terrorists trying to blow up planes IS NOT unlikely, they try it every couple of years at least.
There is a distinction you forgot. Are the terrorists doing it for the lulz, like the DC snipper, or because they want some kind of political change, like the IRA.
The problem is that they probably DID pay 3x the cost of the original. I see lots of HP Vectras and Dell Optiplexes hooked up to $100,000 lab devices, where they paid $10,000 for the damned computer.
I have a feeling that the community of people bitching about loss of support does not intersect with the community of people willing to pay for same. At least not to the extent MS can actually make any money keeping a bugfix team together. Fifteen years of support and bugfixes for a $100 OS seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Isn't this a situation where it would behoove a designer to use a more solid OS, like BSD or whatever actual UNIX is still available? On the other hand, I don't think the problem is the Linux kernel so much, but all the awful packages maintained by well meaning feature sluts?
The problem with so many professions is that people don't respect the experience necessary. It isn't about being able to write a few lines of code, it is about knowing which lines of code to change.
The reason they balked is that it costs more to haul away hazardous materials, and they were clearly cheap-asses.
A proper 3D film would immerse you in a way that makes the plane of the screen irrelevant. Sort of like IMAX. If ALL you can see is what's on the screen, it is easier to be immersed.
There is a theory that goes along with what you said, that when the brain has to fill in hidden information, it does it according to its own tastes and preferences. When reading a book, you make the characters look like how you want them to look. When watching a BW film, we fill in colors that work for us. When watching a 2D film, we intuit the depth from other cues. And so on. When we are presented with everything, our imagination doesn't have much work to do, so the experience hinges on whether the work happens to tweak our preferences or not.
And at the same time, when presented with a more limited medium, the creator of the work has to work harder to tell the story. That's where raw talent comes out. It's much more fun to witness someone with talent working around limitations than it is to witness a hack let loose with no restrictions.
There is such a thing as proportion. Anything over a D cup starts to get sloppy and out of proportion.
But multiple factors increase the entropy greatly. If someone guesses my number and burns a card with it, or steals my card, they have to know my zip code to be able to use it. If they got my wallet, it's probably easy. (Not in my case, as my CC stuff is billed to a different zip code, but I digress.) But it adds a level of complication to the transaction.