You're just listing events which occur in greater frequency toward women as proof that violence is more frequently directed at women. You haven't supplied any more data than the interlocutor you accuse of presenting a baseless argument.
Amazon is grabbing publishers share of the profits? Why do we care? Publishers are just middlemen leaches. They used to add value because publishing used to be expensive. Now people could easily publish their own given a marketplace which wasn't controlled by publishers (like... amazon?).
Amazon might drive the publishers out of business, or cut into their profits? Good.
it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.
Only a person who literally thinks the universe revolves around him would think that the only conceivable source of evidence is himself... especially if you think the evidence is being fabricated in the first place!
It isn't because you think cops are fabricating evidence that you shouldn't speak to them. Cops have been trained that if they can construe your language as damning then it is damning. They mostly honestly believe that if they can get you to trip in word games then they have discovered something. They are mostly not attempting to "fabricate" evidence.
By talking to them, you are very likely to give them evidence which could be used against you. The odds that you are competent enough with language to throw cops "off your scent" by speaking to them are infinitesimally small. If you are the kind of person who picks their actions based on the best probable outcome, you don't speak to them. If you are the person who buys California Lottery tickets, then maybe you roll the dice with trying to present yourself flawlessly in a stressful situation when in all likelihood you don't even know what qualifies as a flawless presentation in the eyes of the police you are speaking to.
At least he makes something people like and are willing to buy. If you hate the shiny iTurds you are free not to buy them. However, he does not do the same horrible shit HP does.
HP puts 185 watt power supplies and changes the freaking components on the fly to save $.005 based on market conditions on the same model. So you can ahve +32 different combinations of the the HP 8500???! Sucks when you create an image as I never know which site at work has which HP 8500. They all ahve different hardware which is most likely defective.
I can not image Steve Jobs saying SCREW GREAT PEOPLE! I want cheap labor for our iMac or iPhone. After all talent is a cost and because of my brand I can sell and do no need to innovate?! Less people means we can make more money etc.
Apple would have been dead in 1999 if it were not for the iMac and then the explosion or products that came later based on the products
I guess you don't mean to say that you can't imagine Steve Jobs outsourcing all their manufacturing to China... since that is what they did and continue to do.
Apple dodges billions in tax they rightfully owe the USA. They manufacture everything oversees. They were even using sweatshops until they got called out on it. All of this was done under Steve Jobs. He caused untold damage to US society by following contemporary big business norms to the letter.
The user does not get a guaranteed bandwidth through the peering connection. That's absurd. And it's not a single user we're talking about, it is the aggregate of all the users who may be streaming one video each, but all together managing to overload the peering connection.
The problem with assuming something is obvious when your interlocutor points out it isn't is that when you are wrong and/or ignorant, you don't discover it. You are experiencing that in this situation.
If you set up a peering connection for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have to install new hardware to increase the bandwidth because more people are trying to use high-bandwidth low-latency services through that gateway, there is a cost. I shouldn't have to "make a case" for something so obvious.
Even with the bandwidth offered by comcast/tw, one user streaming video does not tax the bandwidth that user is paying for. It might seem like it does, but only because it is being actively throttled by the ISP. The amount of bandwidth provided by a google fiber connection is over one order of magnitude greater than the bandwidth being offered by comcast/tw. You are correct that users doing more things requires more bandwidth. You are *greatly* underestimating the amount of bandwidth which is actually available. Given the amount of bandwidth provided by google, every user could simultaneously stream 10 high quality videos and have plenty of bandwidth remaining.
An analogy with a comcast connection would be having a router in your house letting two people browse the internet at once. Does this double the amount of bandwidth used? Yes. Is the amount of bandwidth used still trivial? Yes. Does this doubling of bandwidth use require comcast upgrade their infrastructure? No, because it was expected and accounted for in the initial deployment of said infrastructure.
If you use gmail and google search then you are splitting some pretty fine hairs. Ya they would have a more complete picture if they were your isp but... they know a whole hell of a lot without that (which you are willingly providing). I'd argue they already know the most sensitive information.
Dogs aren't wolves. A wolf will kill you if it thinks it can and it's hungry. Very few dogs are dangerous. Further, dogs kept in tiny cages and never allowed to leave probably wouldn't actually live longer than their wild counterparts, though I'm speculating.
Nonetheless, I agree with your point that confinement is probably much more damaging to a water breathing animal than it is to an air breathing animal.
An animal which travels over 100 miles in a day in the wild is confined to an area slightly larger than itself. Put a human in a cage with a few inches of room between skin and cage wall. See how long it lives.
I think it's amazing that killer whales in captivity only kill a person every once in a while.
I don't agree that there are no tools a government could employ here. A government could create a tax bracket of 70% (or some other arbitratily high number) and make the bracket begin at a number high enough that only those pooling money would be effected(including corps). The government could then spend that money on public infrastructure, employing people in the process. Think power plants, government rollout of highspeed fiber, high speed trains, or hell if you get enough money how about a space elevator?
A government, such as the US govt, could prevent companies by sending all their money oversees by penalizing companies which don't base themselves in the US. A govt could institute a tax on assets upon death. A government could institute tax brackets which target your existing wealth as well as income. A government could redefine corporations in such a way that it is no longer possible for the insane abuses they perpetrate to continue.
I am not saying any of this is easy. However, we aren't trying any of it, and all of it has the potential to help (if not solve) the problem. I also fully realize why we aren't trying any of it: All of it affects the wealthy, and the USA is an oligarchy.
The SCOTUS army is The People of the United States of America. In the event the balance of powers established by the constitution are found by The People to be circumvented by some branch grabbing power not allocated to it, you basically have as close as you are going to get to legal grounds for revolution. To be clear, I mean "circumvented" in a very strong sense. Not simple political dickery, but straight up defiance by the Executive or Legislative branch of a finding by the Supreme Court (or the same sort of activity being taken by the Supreme Court in defiance of the other branches in the sphere which is relegated to them by the constitution).
You probably haven't lived anywhere with a high cost of living while simultaneously attempting to create a lifestyle that is sustainable and will secure you for your retirement years.
Let's do some napkin math. 1 bedroom in San Francisco in a good area is about $3500/month = $42k per year
But of course "middle class" means you should be able to pull off raising a family with 2.5 children. For that you would generally want a house. You aren't going to find a livable house in San Francisco under 1 million, but let's move out to the suburbs since that is traditional middle class practice. How about mountain view? Oh crap, average price there is over a million. But mountain view is google, so of COURSE its expensive there. Let's try Redwood City (which is a shithole). Uh oh, average price is 820k as of january 2014.
Without factoring the myriad other costs of life and family someone making $100,000 per year can't even afford *housing*. If you make less than 100k in that city you can't afford to be there. That means poverty. If you make less than $200k you can't afford anything better than an apartment or condo. That means lower-class. Middle class in the bay area is 400k to 800k income per year, where you can buy an average house.
Part of the reason academia no longer garners respect is because it doesn't deserve it. I went into college foaming at the mouth for serious science. I was excited to do research, pursue professorship, the whole nine yards. What I encountered completely rocked me. Researchers in my field were only given an ear if they were essentially "towing the party line". Anything you found in the journals was just a natural evolution, or some trite spin, on the same theories the discipline had been running with for 30 years. This sucked, but I guess I could forgive it if the science was sound.
The science was horrifyingly, clearly, absolutely not sound. Articles regularly publish results, but do not clearly provide the steps necessary to reproduce them. Further, they rarely publish their raw data.Their power was entirely seated in the name of the researcher presenting the article. They were essentially no better than the websites you refer to.
There are reasons for all this. Researchers are pushed to publish publish publish no matter what. Large class sizes. No room to try experiments that might fail. The list goes on.But just because there are reasons doesn't make the situation excusable.
Academia today in the US a joke. It absolutely deserves to be regarded with scorn.
There is a huge amount of land in California the middle class can afford: the Central Valley. The air is so bad you are almost guaranteed to experience asthma or allergies, but you can swing it on as low as 30k per year in my opinion. Those kids living in LA, SF, SD who make 30k per year? They basically live in squalor(for America). They value the coolness of those cities so much they are willing to live 4 to a 2-bedroom, or get their own place and live paycheck to paycheck, or live with their folks.
Middle class can't afford San Francisco. A cheap house there is 800k. It isn't a question of sacrificing on a cell phone plan. The values are stratospherically out of reach for middle class earners.
The coworker of a friend of mine was hired because he had a masters in CS. One day my friend had to tell him about this great thing called "regular expressions".
Do you seriously believe there is any reason for open floor plans other than that companies want to save money and don't see the connection between working conditions and the performance of their employees? No one wants to work in an open environment. Companies do it because they can put up four walls and a ceiling and call it done.
It is sophistry to say that both gay and straight individuals have the same rights when pointing out that gay people can marry people of the opposite gender. Some people regard marriage as an institution which expresses their love for another human being in the strongest possible terms. Some of these people are gay. Some are straight. The straight ones have the right to marry the person they love. They are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, in this pursuit at least. Gay people are not.
You might respond that this is not a "right". If you do, you would be forgetting the philosophical commitment underlying the enumeration of powers in the US constitution. There are an infinite number of rights, just as there are an infinite number of powers. It was an absurdly enormous mistake to title the first 10 amendments the "Bill of Rights", because many people mistake this for suggesting it is possible to enumerate all the rights which individuals possess. Rather, all people retain all rights and powers unless they are explicitly removed from them (in the case of rights) or reassigned (in the case of powers).
This is why those who appose the right of gay people to marry must pass laws to prevent it. Gay people's rights in this matter are being denied by law.
Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.
It is not intolerant to call something a human rights issue. It cannot possibly be argued that gay marriage is a *civil* rights issue, but if someone wants to assert they think all humans should be guaranteed this right then those asserters are not being intolerant. They are expressing the strength of their conviction.
They aren't "our" spying capabilities. One of the reasons people are upset with the situation is that the NSA is indiscriminate in their targets. American citizens are just as open to attack as foreign citizens. Those spying capabilities belong to an organization accountable to no one with dirt on everyone alive. If their interests happen to align with those of the American People, great. If they don't, too bad for the American People, because it is damn hard to reign an organization with the sweeping level of knowledge now possessed by the NSA.
The NSA is only still associated with the American people in the sense that it funds itself in large part with tax money taken from those Americans.
The reason I make the claim that it is unlikely any human categorically dislikes music of all kinds is because what we can consider music is incredibly broad. It is like making the claim that there are humans who don't enjoy art. It seems nearly impossible because the nature of art is such that it permeates all human endeavor. Medicine, for example, is art. Lots of science in there of course. But there is a lot of art as well. I don't mean "an art" either, I mean art. When people start doing things creatively according to their internal sense of aesthetics, they've made some art.
"I don't enjoy music" meaning "I don't pursue even a tiny interest in music" seems plausible to me. What seems implausible to me is the statement "I have never enjoyed a work of music in my life". I'll admit that it isn't really based on anything I know about cognitive science, so I could be wrong. There might well be people who actually don't like any combination of melody, beat, rhythm, or whatever. The reason I find it diffiult to believe is because music is just artistic expression, and artistic expression seems to be a part of what it is to be human. I would think that some form of music would resonante with anyone because by the definition of art there are nearly no limits to what one could consider music. If there was no music a person liked, I would think they could make some by just tapping their fingers on a table in a way they find calming/pleasing/whatever.
All the crap I just said in this post is unrelated to my training as a linguist. Like I said above, music doesn't preceed language, and linguists have no need to study it as a foundational sort of thing. I also happen to have a philosohpy degree, so the above is mostly me trying to make clear what we mean by our terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they are trying to make it obvious that they have been coerced into cooperating with the NSA using the only language they can legally apply?
You're just listing events which occur in greater frequency toward women as proof that violence is more frequently directed at women. You haven't supplied any more data than the interlocutor you accuse of presenting a baseless argument.
Because they aren't depicted as sex objects in most other contexts in society? Geeks aren't special here.
www.openremote.com
Amazon is grabbing publishers share of the profits? Why do we care? Publishers are just middlemen leaches. They used to add value because publishing used to be expensive. Now people could easily publish their own given a marketplace which wasn't controlled by publishers (like... amazon?).
Amazon might drive the publishers out of business, or cut into their profits? Good.
it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.
Only a person who literally thinks the universe revolves around him would think that the only conceivable source of evidence is himself... especially if you think the evidence is being fabricated in the first place!
It isn't because you think cops are fabricating evidence that you shouldn't speak to them. Cops have been trained that if they can construe your language as damning then it is damning. They mostly honestly believe that if they can get you to trip in word games then they have discovered something. They are mostly not attempting to "fabricate" evidence.
By talking to them, you are very likely to give them evidence which could be used against you. The odds that you are competent enough with language to throw cops "off your scent" by speaking to them are infinitesimally small. If you are the kind of person who picks their actions based on the best probable outcome, you don't speak to them. If you are the person who buys California Lottery tickets, then maybe you roll the dice with trying to present yourself flawlessly in a stressful situation when in all likelihood you don't even know what qualifies as a flawless presentation in the eyes of the police you are speaking to.
Steve Jobs I respect.
At least he makes something people like and are willing to buy. If you hate the shiny iTurds you are free not to buy them. However, he does not do the same horrible shit HP does.
HP puts 185 watt power supplies and changes the freaking components on the fly to save $.005 based on market conditions on the same model. So you can ahve +32 different combinations of the the HP 8500???! Sucks when you create an image as I never know which site at work has which HP 8500. They all ahve different hardware which is most likely defective.
I can not image Steve Jobs saying SCREW GREAT PEOPLE! I want cheap labor for our iMac or iPhone. After all talent is a cost and because of my brand I can sell and do no need to innovate?! Less people means we can make more money etc.
Apple would have been dead in 1999 if it were not for the iMac and then the explosion or products that came later based on the products
I guess you don't mean to say that you can't imagine Steve Jobs outsourcing all their manufacturing to China... since that is what they did and continue to do.
Apple dodges billions in tax they rightfully owe the USA. They manufacture everything oversees. They were even using sweatshops until they got called out on it. All of this was done under Steve Jobs. He caused untold damage to US society by following contemporary big business norms to the letter.
The user does not get a guaranteed bandwidth through the peering connection. That's absurd. And it's not a single user we're talking about, it is the aggregate of all the users who may be streaming one video each, but all together managing to overload the peering connection.
The problem with assuming something is obvious when your interlocutor points out it isn't is that when you are wrong and/or ignorant, you don't discover it. You are experiencing that in this situation.
If you set up a peering connection for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have to install new hardware to increase the bandwidth because more people are trying to use high-bandwidth low-latency services through that gateway, there is a cost. I shouldn't have to "make a case" for something so obvious.
Even with the bandwidth offered by comcast/tw, one user streaming video does not tax the bandwidth that user is paying for. It might seem like it does, but only because it is being actively throttled by the ISP. The amount of bandwidth provided by a google fiber connection is over one order of magnitude greater than the bandwidth being offered by comcast/tw. You are correct that users doing more things requires more bandwidth. You are *greatly* underestimating the amount of bandwidth which is actually available. Given the amount of bandwidth provided by google, every user could simultaneously stream 10 high quality videos and have plenty of bandwidth remaining.
An analogy with a comcast connection would be having a router in your house letting two people browse the internet at once. Does this double the amount of bandwidth used? Yes. Is the amount of bandwidth used still trivial? Yes. Does this doubling of bandwidth use require comcast upgrade their infrastructure? No, because it was expected and accounted for in the initial deployment of said infrastructure.
If you use gmail and google search then you are splitting some pretty fine hairs. Ya they would have a more complete picture if they were your isp but... they know a whole hell of a lot without that (which you are willingly providing). I'd argue they already know the most sensitive information.
If the police become suspicious of you because you aren't giving them evidence... it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.
Dogs aren't wolves. A wolf will kill you if it thinks it can and it's hungry. Very few dogs are dangerous. Further, dogs kept in tiny cages and never allowed to leave probably wouldn't actually live longer than their wild counterparts, though I'm speculating.
Nonetheless, I agree with your point that confinement is probably much more damaging to a water breathing animal than it is to an air breathing animal.
Will it be protected by DRM?
An animal which travels over 100 miles in a day in the wild is confined to an area slightly larger than itself. Put a human in a cage with a few inches of room between skin and cage wall. See how long it lives.
I think it's amazing that killer whales in captivity only kill a person every once in a while.
The reason terrorists don't bother with stuff like this:
There aren't any.
I don't agree that there are no tools a government could employ here. A government could create a tax bracket of 70% (or some other arbitratily high number) and make the bracket begin at a number high enough that only those pooling money would be effected(including corps). The government could then spend that money on public infrastructure, employing people in the process. Think power plants, government rollout of highspeed fiber, high speed trains, or hell if you get enough money how about a space elevator?
A government, such as the US govt, could prevent companies by sending all their money oversees by penalizing companies which don't base themselves in the US. A govt could institute a tax on assets upon death. A government could institute tax brackets which target your existing wealth as well as income. A government could redefine corporations in such a way that it is no longer possible for the insane abuses they perpetrate to continue.
I am not saying any of this is easy. However, we aren't trying any of it, and all of it has the potential to help (if not solve) the problem. I also fully realize why we aren't trying any of it: All of it affects the wealthy, and the USA is an oligarchy.
The SCOTUS army is The People of the United States of America. In the event the balance of powers established by the constitution are found by The People to be circumvented by some branch grabbing power not allocated to it, you basically have as close as you are going to get to legal grounds for revolution. To be clear, I mean "circumvented" in a very strong sense. Not simple political dickery, but straight up defiance by the Executive or Legislative branch of a finding by the Supreme Court (or the same sort of activity being taken by the Supreme Court in defiance of the other branches in the sphere which is relegated to them by the constitution).
You probably haven't lived anywhere with a high cost of living while simultaneously attempting to create a lifestyle that is sustainable and will secure you for your retirement years.
Let's do some napkin math.
1 bedroom in San Francisco in a good area is about $3500/month = $42k per year
But of course "middle class" means you should be able to pull off raising a family with 2.5 children. For that you would generally want a house. You aren't going to find a livable house in San Francisco under 1 million, but let's move out to the suburbs since that is traditional middle class practice. How about mountain view? Oh crap, average price there is over a million. But mountain view is google, so of COURSE its expensive there. Let's try Redwood City (which is a shithole). Uh oh, average price is 820k as of january 2014.
Without factoring the myriad other costs of life and family someone making $100,000 per year can't even afford *housing*. If you make less than 100k in that city you can't afford to be there. That means poverty. If you make less than $200k you can't afford anything better than an apartment or condo. That means lower-class. Middle class in the bay area is 400k to 800k income per year, where you can buy an average house.
Part of the reason academia no longer garners respect is because it doesn't deserve it. I went into college foaming at the mouth for serious science. I was excited to do research, pursue professorship, the whole nine yards. What I encountered completely rocked me. Researchers in my field were only given an ear if they were essentially "towing the party line". Anything you found in the journals was just a natural evolution, or some trite spin, on the same theories the discipline had been running with for 30 years. This sucked, but I guess I could forgive it if the science was sound.
The science was horrifyingly, clearly, absolutely not sound. Articles regularly publish results, but do not clearly provide the steps necessary to reproduce them. Further, they rarely publish their raw data.Their power was entirely seated in the name of the researcher presenting the article. They were essentially no better than the websites you refer to.
There are reasons for all this. Researchers are pushed to publish publish publish no matter what. Large class sizes. No room to try experiments that might fail. The list goes on.But just because there are reasons doesn't make the situation excusable.
Academia today in the US a joke. It absolutely deserves to be regarded with scorn.
There is a huge amount of land in California the middle class can afford: the Central Valley. The air is so bad you are almost guaranteed to experience asthma or allergies, but you can swing it on as low as 30k per year in my opinion. Those kids living in LA, SF, SD who make 30k per year? They basically live in squalor(for America). They value the coolness of those cities so much they are willing to live 4 to a 2-bedroom, or get their own place and live paycheck to paycheck, or live with their folks.
Middle class can't afford San Francisco. A cheap house there is 800k. It isn't a question of sacrificing on a cell phone plan. The values are stratospherically out of reach for middle class earners.
Almost all problems experienced by groups of humans are self-inflicted.
The coworker of a friend of mine was hired because he had a masters in CS. One day my friend had to tell him about this great thing called "regular expressions".
Do you seriously believe there is any reason for open floor plans other than that companies want to save money and don't see the connection between working conditions and the performance of their employees? No one wants to work in an open environment. Companies do it because they can put up four walls and a ceiling and call it done.
It is sophistry to say that both gay and straight individuals have the same rights when pointing out that gay people can marry people of the opposite gender. Some people regard marriage as an institution which expresses their love for another human being in the strongest possible terms. Some of these people are gay. Some are straight. The straight ones have the right to marry the person they love. They are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, in this pursuit at least. Gay people are not.
You might respond that this is not a "right". If you do, you would be forgetting the philosophical commitment underlying the enumeration of powers in the US constitution. There are an infinite number of rights, just as there are an infinite number of powers. It was an absurdly enormous mistake to title the first 10 amendments the "Bill of Rights", because many people mistake this for suggesting it is possible to enumerate all the rights which individuals possess. Rather, all people retain all rights and powers unless they are explicitly removed from them (in the case of rights) or reassigned (in the case of powers).
This is why those who appose the right of gay people to marry must pass laws to prevent it. Gay people's rights in this matter are being denied by law.
Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.
It is not intolerant to call something a human rights issue. It cannot possibly be argued that gay marriage is a *civil* rights issue, but if someone wants to assert they think all humans should be guaranteed this right then those asserters are not being intolerant. They are expressing the strength of their conviction.
They aren't "our" spying capabilities. One of the reasons people are upset with the situation is that the NSA is indiscriminate in their targets. American citizens are just as open to attack as foreign citizens. Those spying capabilities belong to an organization accountable to no one with dirt on everyone alive. If their interests happen to align with those of the American People, great. If they don't, too bad for the American People, because it is damn hard to reign an organization with the sweeping level of knowledge now possessed by the NSA.
The NSA is only still associated with the American people in the sense that it funds itself in large part with tax money taken from those Americans.
The reason I make the claim that it is unlikely any human categorically dislikes music of all kinds is because what we can consider music is incredibly broad. It is like making the claim that there are humans who don't enjoy art. It seems nearly impossible because the nature of art is such that it permeates all human endeavor. Medicine, for example, is art. Lots of science in there of course. But there is a lot of art as well. I don't mean "an art" either, I mean art. When people start doing things creatively according to their internal sense of aesthetics, they've made some art.
"I don't enjoy music" meaning "I don't pursue even a tiny interest in music" seems plausible to me. What seems implausible to me is the statement "I have never enjoyed a work of music in my life". I'll admit that it isn't really based on anything I know about cognitive science, so I could be wrong. There might well be people who actually don't like any combination of melody, beat, rhythm, or whatever. The reason I find it diffiult to believe is because music is just artistic expression, and artistic expression seems to be a part of what it is to be human. I would think that some form of music would resonante with anyone because by the definition of art there are nearly no limits to what one could consider music. If there was no music a person liked, I would think they could make some by just tapping their fingers on a table in a way they find calming/pleasing/whatever.
All the crap I just said in this post is unrelated to my training as a linguist. Like I said above, music doesn't preceed language, and linguists have no need to study it as a foundational sort of thing. I also happen to have a philosohpy degree, so the above is mostly me trying to make clear what we mean by our terms.