The audience of this site are "Nerds". "Stuff that matters" is measured in the amount of comments a story gets. So whether this is a relevant story, we're soon to find out. Maybe try to get a sport score story in here at some time, it might matter...
Good for you, though you'll soon find out that your simple act of tolerance will be deemed offensive by the majority of your clientele. Bye-bye business.
Your argument breaks down when enough people find the act of 'inclusion' offensive in its own right. Say I do start a wedding shop that caters for gays somewhere deep in bigot land. Although on the surface I'm serving a larger potential market, the religious bigots will avoid my business as the plague, simply because I also serve a group they don't like. They will also refuse to do business with anyone that dares to shop at my place. Because I'm Satan. Net result, I only get custom from the few gays and libs that dare to confront the majority, and I'm bankrupt in a few months. Status quo is maintained and will not be broken due to the tyranny of the majority. Study segregation a bit to see how this works.
In reality, gay people outside of large Metropolitan areas will indeed be unable to get a cake decorated. Because Jane's wedding shop is not decorating "gay" cakes, Sue's wedding shop, who is providing "gay" cakes will be out of business very soon, as only gays will do business there. The rest of the population goes to virtuous Jane and will leave Satan Sue without much business. So soon there will be no cake to have, nor eat, for gay people. Tyranny of the majority.
Just a stray thought: would it be ok for a Jewish/Muslim baker to refuse to create a cake in the form of a pig, say if he also creates cake in the form of a chicken?
Someone needs to move first, and I think China has a pretty good argument that the rise from 320 ppm to 400 ppm from 1960 to 2015 is about 80% attributable to Western society. No wonder they're waiting for the West to stop further increase before they start. Posts like yours give a clear indication that the US will not make this first move.
Suppose you drop a piece of paper in a landfill, and suddenly you get slapped by a bill to clean up 50% of this landfill. Fair?
They're testing the common assumption that to do anything fast, you have to do it in memory, regardless of language etc.They take production code to test this. Their work falsifies the claim that memory operations are necessarily faster. The abstract is pretty clear about this, not sure where you got confused.
Mr. Helicopters, are you aware you are commenting in a thread about a country where public opinion, money as well as politics are aligned to create a solution? I understand you're from Texas, so it's hard to conceive that things are different outside of your backward little universe, but truly, claiming that nothing can be done "because politics" in an article where it is actually politics that works on a solution is even for Texan standards pretty darn stupid.
Let's take another analogy: suppose we're somehow capable due to our actions to melt the ice on Greenland and Antarctic in such large quantities that the sea-level rises significantly. Suppose it will rise by 10 meters if we don't do anything. Shutting down what we do completely would let it rise by a mere 5 meters. Doing something less than that will only bring us halfway, making it rise only 7.5 meters. The difference between 7.5 and 10 will still probably save millions of lives. There will still be cities destroyed, but fewer. Although your plane analogy is possibly much more relevant to the issue of global warming than my sea-level example, it does point out that your argument doesn't necessarily hold water.
I'm not sure that you've thought this all the way through. Imagine a world without copyright on software. Would the philosophy behind the GPL still be distinctive? I would say it would not: although it would make making the clause about distributing the 'preferred way of making modifications' untenable, it would allow everyone to modify and distribute source code if they have it, it would allow anyone to decompile, reverse engineer, modify and distribute. If I can distribute your binaries without repercussions, proprietary software would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure a world without copyright on software is RMS' dream.
GPL is called copyleft for a reason. Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist. It's simply a countermeasure to copyright. Your argument about "force" and "choice" are only relevant in a world that accepts copyright as a given. The GPL does not accept that premise.
In most countries, if you frivolously take on a lawsuit and lose, you pay for the court procedure. You would indeed take up the courts time, but in the end, it is you who pays for that time. Revenue generation is unaffected (and incidentally, in these countries, revenues go to the state, not the police force).
No, if the property is worth $1,000,000, he can take a mortgage to pay the fine. And if the property can only ever make $20K a year, how come it's worth a million bucks?
The scientific consensus is that the so-called "climate sceptics" have nothing to contribute. Just drivel. So they're shut out, like the creationists. Meanwhile, science continues.
A model is a hypothesis. The 'null' model is the one that states there is no relation between the variables. If your model is not better than this 'null' model, what have you shown exactly?
Europe was 1.2 degrees warmer than average in 2014, beating the record of 2011. Also Russia experienced a very warm winter. I think you have a bit of a bias to the North-American part of the Northern hemisphere.
I'm in Holland. Holland is in the Northern Hemisphere. We had the highest average temperature in 2014. The highest in 3 centuries. Hell, I remember March 9th 2014, having a barbecue with my family with 20+ degree celsius. Every month with the exception of August was warmer than average. 2015 is not a whole lot different: no winter to speak of, no frost, no snow, no ice. Temperatures are again in the high 10s. You might want to do a bit more research.
We're perfectly capable of predicting that a boiling pan of water will run dry, and even predict when exactly, without even having the faintest idea where exactly the next bubble will surface.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers truly fucked up this one. Thinking that by disallowing congress to infringe on the bearing of arms, a well-regulated militia would be formed. Automatically. What were they thinking? Look at these guys in the video: a well-regulated militia? No, bozos with lethal weapons. Epic logic fail.
I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard. The first amendment doesn't have such provisions. In practice, the very liberal interpretation of the second amendment outside of its original intent seems to be a wholly bad idea in densely populated regions. In rural areas, less of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he screwed up the fact that the US is screwing up their allies, so that makes him a meta-traitor?
The audience of this site are "Nerds". "Stuff that matters" is measured in the amount of comments a story gets. So whether this is a relevant story, we're soon to find out. Maybe try to get a sport score story in here at some time, it might matter...
However, if you want to change the way you are treated, it's probably the only way.
Good for you, though you'll soon find out that your simple act of tolerance will be deemed offensive by the majority of your clientele. Bye-bye business.
Your argument breaks down when enough people find the act of 'inclusion' offensive in its own right. Say I do start a wedding shop that caters for gays somewhere deep in bigot land. Although on the surface I'm serving a larger potential market, the religious bigots will avoid my business as the plague, simply because I also serve a group they don't like. They will also refuse to do business with anyone that dares to shop at my place. Because I'm Satan. Net result, I only get custom from the few gays and libs that dare to confront the majority, and I'm bankrupt in a few months. Status quo is maintained and will not be broken due to the tyranny of the majority. Study segregation a bit to see how this works.
In reality, gay people outside of large Metropolitan areas will indeed be unable to get a cake decorated. Because Jane's wedding shop is not decorating "gay" cakes, Sue's wedding shop, who is providing "gay" cakes will be out of business very soon, as only gays will do business there. The rest of the population goes to virtuous Jane and will leave Satan Sue without much business. So soon there will be no cake to have, nor eat, for gay people. Tyranny of the majority.
Just a stray thought: would it be ok for a Jewish/Muslim baker to refuse to create a cake in the form of a pig, say if he also creates cake in the form of a chicken?
Someone needs to move first, and I think China has a pretty good argument that the rise from 320 ppm to 400 ppm from 1960 to 2015 is about 80% attributable to Western society. No wonder they're waiting for the West to stop further increase before they start. Posts like yours give a clear indication that the US will not make this first move.
Suppose you drop a piece of paper in a landfill, and suddenly you get slapped by a bill to clean up 50% of this landfill. Fair?
Yes, it has stabilized for the last 18 years. At the same time it has become warmer for the both the last 17 and the last 19 years.
They're testing the common assumption that to do anything fast, you have to do it in memory, regardless of language etc.They take production code to test this. Their work falsifies the claim that memory operations are necessarily faster. The abstract is pretty clear about this, not sure where you got confused.
Mr. Helicopters, are you aware you are commenting in a thread about a country where public opinion, money as well as politics are aligned to create a solution? I understand you're from Texas, so it's hard to conceive that things are different outside of your backward little universe, but truly, claiming that nothing can be done "because politics" in an article where it is actually politics that works on a solution is even for Texan standards pretty darn stupid.
Let's take another analogy: suppose we're somehow capable due to our actions to melt the ice on Greenland and Antarctic in such large quantities that the sea-level rises significantly. Suppose it will rise by 10 meters if we don't do anything. Shutting down what we do completely would let it rise by a mere 5 meters. Doing something less than that will only bring us halfway, making it rise only 7.5 meters. The difference between 7.5 and 10 will still probably save millions of lives. There will still be cities destroyed, but fewer. Although your plane analogy is possibly much more relevant to the issue of global warming than my sea-level example, it does point out that your argument doesn't necessarily hold water.
I'm not sure that you've thought this all the way through. Imagine a world without copyright on software. Would the philosophy behind the GPL still be distinctive? I would say it would not: although it would make making the clause about distributing the 'preferred way of making modifications' untenable, it would allow everyone to modify and distribute source code if they have it, it would allow anyone to decompile, reverse engineer, modify and distribute. If I can distribute your binaries without repercussions, proprietary software would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure a world without copyright on software is RMS' dream.
GPL is called copyleft for a reason. Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist. It's simply a countermeasure to copyright. Your argument about "force" and "choice" are only relevant in a world that accepts copyright as a given. The GPL does not accept that premise.
And you truly think this has been overlooked? Hallmark of a cook: scientists are stupid and have completely missed some obvious thing I came up with.
In most countries, if you frivolously take on a lawsuit and lose, you pay for the court procedure. You would indeed take up the courts time, but in the end, it is you who pays for that time. Revenue generation is unaffected (and incidentally, in these countries, revenues go to the state, not the police force).
No, if the property is worth $1,000,000, he can take a mortgage to pay the fine. And if the property can only ever make $20K a year, how come it's worth a million bucks?
Losen up. Your begging the question.
The scientific consensus is that the so-called "climate sceptics" have nothing to contribute. Just drivel. So they're shut out, like the creationists. Meanwhile, science continues.
A model is a hypothesis. The 'null' model is the one that states there is no relation between the variables. If your model is not better than this 'null' model, what have you shown exactly?
Europe was 1.2 degrees warmer than average in 2014, beating the record of 2011. Also Russia experienced a very warm winter. I think you have a bit of a bias to the North-American part of the Northern hemisphere.
I'm in Holland. Holland is in the Northern Hemisphere. We had the highest average temperature in 2014. The highest in 3 centuries. Hell, I remember March 9th 2014, having a barbecue with my family with 20+ degree celsius. Every month with the exception of August was warmer than average. 2015 is not a whole lot different: no winter to speak of, no frost, no snow, no ice. Temperatures are again in the high 10s. You might want to do a bit more research.
We're perfectly capable of predicting that a boiling pan of water will run dry, and even predict when exactly, without even having the faintest idea where exactly the next bubble will surface.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers truly fucked up this one. Thinking that by disallowing congress to infringe on the bearing of arms, a well-regulated militia would be formed. Automatically. What were they thinking? Look at these guys in the video: a well-regulated militia? No, bozos with lethal weapons. Epic logic fail.
I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard. The first amendment doesn't have such provisions. In practice, the very liberal interpretation of the second amendment outside of its original intent seems to be a wholly bad idea in densely populated regions. In rural areas, less of a problem.