It would be a superstition only if it turned out to be false. It could, in fact, be true, in which case your puny science would have been of absolutely no use to you whatsoever in understanding the greatest fact of your known universe. Interesting.
Which comment would you block? Play the moderator role and take our quiz to see how your decisions compare to those of Guardian moderators
In an opinion piece about what makes one a "feminazi": “Funny how so many journalists are female, and how many are feminists! A disproportionate number pollute journalism. Jusrt shows that men DO tend to do 'harder' jobs than keyboard bashing, while the technology that men designed and built is used to provide these harpies with a medium from which to spout their biased, sexist, hateful misandry.” CENSORED. This comment serves only to derail the conversation, and diminish the (female) writer. In tone and content it adds nothing of value to the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In a fashion piece: "So blue jeans are 'finally back'? This might be shocking for sheltered London-centric Guardian types but out in the real world, people have been wearing blue jeans quite happily for years." ALLOWED. This is a mild case of dismissive trolling (no, this isn't news: it is a fashion piece, about fashion trends) but it was not blocked because although dismissive, it is more a criticism of the article than the author.
In an article about protests over the death of Eric Garner: “A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.” CENSORED. This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
In an opinion piece about antisemitic conspiracy theories "I don’t think that pointing out the disproportional political influence Jews have in most western societies can be called a conspiracy. But branding people that point it out and labelling them anti-Semitic seems to me part of a conspiracy." CENSORED. This was removed for antisemitism: claiming Jewish people have disproportional influence in politics is an antisemitic trope with a long history. The comment also seems to suggest antisemtism doesn't really exist other than as a way to silence people.
In an article about Hillary Clinton and female voters: “THERE IS NO GENDER PAY GAP! Just more feminist crap portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators. Even worse is the lie we live in a rape culture with one in five women raped over a lifetime. Sure if you re-define what constitutes a rape including a drunk girl gives consent but regrets it next day.” CENSORED. This is a classic case of “whataboutery” and – specifically – “What about the men?”. In tone and content it adds nothing of value, and derails the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In an article about Jose Mourinho and Manchester United: “The Guardian, once a standard bearer of quality journalism now contains football journalists so in love with Mourinho it makes me sad. This is just the latest in an incredible long campaign for the despicable one to join the club of Matt Busby and Jimmy Murphy. I am astonished that the editor of the paper allows this dross to be published. You are a disgrace to the profession.” CENSORED. This was deleted because it is both author abuse and goes beyond reasonable criticism of the piece to smear both the Guardian and the journalist.
In an opinion piece about the Oscars and LGBT people: “Oh dear. Can I award you the Oscar for the clunkiest metaphor in a wrong-headed Oscar-themed click-bait article?” ALLOWED. This is a mild case of author abuse and dismissive trolling. It was not blocked because it is more criticism of the article than the author. “Dismissive trolling” is usually blocked – comments like “Calm down, dear” or “On your hobby horse again, I see” which mock or otherwise dismiss the author or
Were her calculations any "blacker" than others? Or more "feminine"? No? Then why should anyone care? You might as well talk about someone's shoe size or the length of their nose.
Bill Nye is an entertainer, not a scientist. Millennials are, by definition, young, inexperienced people. That young people believe what a TV personality tells them is not exactly a news flash.
The labels just say that fees and taxes "varies by location". First off, is that even true of Federal fees and taxes? And secondly, how about a little transparency here, and link us to the anticipated extra costs of the government.
That's not even spying, that's just normal attempted media manipulation. I am shocked, shocked that there are bots on social media!
Here's the thing: regular voters aren't swayed by social media or advertisements, and it's regular, reliable voters who get the job done because they show up at the polls on time and properly documented.
Thanks for the article, it was very informative. However, it did not convince me that gerrymandering benefits the Republicans more than the Democrats.
Prior to 2010, the Democrats out-gerrymandered the Republicans 172 districts to 5. After the Republicans started sweeping the state elections, they out-gerrymandered the Democrats 193 districts to 44.
Seems like the Democrats had the better of it when they were in the majority. The problem is that Democrats are losing their majority, not that the Republicans are out-classing them at gerrymandering.
No doubt this, too, shall change. The pendulum swings.
According to the article, Sprint or T-Mobile aren't limited because those ISPs don't charge customers for overage. Maybe what needs to change are Verizon and AT&T's fee structures.
... and they come across a neon sign that says, "Eat. At. Joes --->"
The preacher says, "Huh. Look, at that. It's a sign!" The scientist says, "Yes. It has glass, rubber, steel, paint, neon gas I presume... very interesting." "Wait, what? My scientist friend, it's a sign." "Well, we don't know that for sure, do we?" "Of course it's a sign! It says, 'eat at Joes'." "Well, who is this 'Joe'? Has anyone ever seen him? How do we know he exists?" "...."
It's a bit more fluid than even your description of the process. What person would willingly submit themselves to be a supreme court nominee just for show? No one who is truly competent; skilled people hate to have skill trifled with. So, if the President finds someone willing, that someone is not going to have a stellar reputation. Then the court of public opinion will weigh in, and the Senate will find all the cover it needs to either just sit on the nomination and not put it on the calendar at all, or reject the nomination out of hand.
That is one of the most depressingly accurate comments, ever. Yes, of course this is "Interstate Commerce". Of what use is a written definition of anything anymore?
His answer is the same as the founders of the U.S. Constitution: balance power with power, and RELY on actors to work only in their own self-interest. Competition among equals is a feature, not a bug.
If he can code, then coding obviously isn't very hard; politicians generally aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.
I never understood this passion for teaching people to code. Writing code is like drawing with crayons, language-wise. In fact, it's problem is that it is too simple, so simple that there are absolutely no ambiguities or shades of meaning. Normal language speakers have to train themselves to NOT think normally, in order to code well. It's like giving a painter 64 crayons and telling him or her to draw the Mona Lisa. Well, that's 3 strokes of Blue, 1 of Yellow, 2 of Green, 1 of Purple and a dash of Black, then Grey. There. That's the color of that shaded portion under her right thumb.
I've written two such "languages" of my own, and have learned about six more. I never found any of them particularly difficult. Programming is thinking. Thinking -- not coding -- is what's hard.
Cut to the chase, Trump supporters. Upstream of using the Internet is thinking. Thinking leads to bad thoughts, and bad thoughts lead to bad acts. Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. Do it now! For the children...
I sat through the same, boring geometry class and HATED it. There was nothing to "solve", just memorize this recipe, and apply it to these problems. It couldn't have been less interesting. What use was a "proof"? What were you trying to prove, that you could memorize stuff?
Several years later, I came across Euclid in my college philosophy class, and suddenly geometry made sense -- as a logical system of thought. Precept followed precept, and the "proof" was to follow an unbroken line of logically sound statements that led you to a logically sound conclusion. It was a beautiful piece of work, absolutely brilliant.
As a long-time Cox customer, I hope they win this fight, but it may take more than a court case. There has to be some reasonable limits on take-down notices. You can't just send out literally millions of notices in huge batches, and expect the ISPs to just shut up while you flood their valued customers. You can't include legal threats and settlement proposals in your notices, your notice must FIRST be a request to remove the contested content. If we don't have these simple standards of reasonableness in place, our ISPs are just going to be conduits for shakedowns.
So, thank you, Cox, for once again showing everyone what an ethical ISP that cares about its customers acts like. Stay classy.
Q. But where did that first bit of self-referential information come from?
A. We of course know that all life on Earth has enormous amounts of information that comes from evolution, which allows information to grow slowly. Before evolution, you couldn’t have this process. As a consequence, the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance.
I'm sorry, but this answer is nearly incomprehensible. Information "comes from" evolution, which then "allows" it to "grow", but before evolution, you couldn't have any information? That doesn't even make sense. And, before evolution the first "piece" of information rose by "chance"? What does that even mean?
He's still talking about evolution, which a dead-end theory when you're talking about the origins of life, because you can't "evolve" something that doesn't already exist. Duh.
The Columbia river gorge in Washington state was carved from a series of cataclysmic floods, the largest of which carried 13 times the volume of the Amazon river.
Actually, when you don't know the scope in advance, you need to FLIP the estimate into a maximum allowed effort. Ask the customer how much they are willing to spend on the problem for now, and then do all that you can for that amount and cycle back. When you report how much you did, you'll also know much better how much is left to do. Then you can make another ask.
Edward Maibach, for example, is the Director of Climate Change Communication, and holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego, an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University, and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University. He teaches how to talk about climate, but he doesn't study it.
I put it at the time of Wilson and FDR, both big-government, proactive Presidents who represented a shift towards authoritarianism that the majority of the people wanted at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be a superstition only if it turned out to be false. It could, in fact, be true, in which case your puny science would have been of absolutely no use to you whatsoever in understanding the greatest fact of your known universe. Interesting.
Which comment would you block? Play the moderator role and take our quiz to see how your decisions compare to those of Guardian moderators
In an opinion piece about what makes one a "feminazi": “Funny how so many journalists are female, and how many are feminists! A disproportionate number pollute journalism. Jusrt shows that men DO tend to do 'harder' jobs than keyboard bashing, while the technology that men designed and built is used to provide these harpies with a medium from which to spout their biased, sexist, hateful misandry.” CENSORED. This comment serves only to derail the conversation, and diminish the (female) writer. In tone and content it adds nothing of value to the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In a fashion piece: "So blue jeans are 'finally back'? This might be shocking for sheltered London-centric Guardian types but out in the real world, people have been wearing blue jeans quite happily for years." ALLOWED. This is a mild case of dismissive trolling (no, this isn't news: it is a fashion piece, about fashion trends) but it was not blocked because although dismissive, it is more a criticism of the article than the author.
In an article about protests over the death of Eric Garner: “A 12-year-old boy, out at night, waving a BB gun? What sort of parent allows that? What happened is the product of a fucked up society/community/culture/upbringing. I'm sorry to say, but often black people are their own worst enemies.” CENSORED. This was removed for racism (“black people are their own worst enemy”; “fucked up community/culture” etc).
In an opinion piece about antisemitic conspiracy theories "I don’t think that pointing out the disproportional political influence Jews have in most western societies can be called a conspiracy. But branding people that point it out and labelling them anti-Semitic seems to me part of a conspiracy." CENSORED. This was removed for antisemitism: claiming Jewish people have disproportional influence in politics is an antisemitic trope with a long history. The comment also seems to suggest antisemtism doesn't really exist other than as a way to silence people.
In an article about Hillary Clinton and female voters: “THERE IS NO GENDER PAY GAP! Just more feminist crap portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators. Even worse is the lie we live in a rape culture with one in five women raped over a lifetime. Sure if you re-define what constitutes a rape including a drunk girl gives consent but regrets it next day.” CENSORED. This is a classic case of “whataboutery” and – specifically – “What about the men?”. In tone and content it adds nothing of value, and derails the conversation. Plus it is sexist, which our guidelines make clear won’t be tolerated.
In an article about Jose Mourinho and Manchester United: “The Guardian, once a standard bearer of quality journalism now contains football journalists so in love with Mourinho it makes me sad. This is just the latest in an incredible long campaign for the despicable one to join the club of Matt Busby and Jimmy Murphy. I am astonished that the editor of the paper allows this dross to be published. You are a disgrace to the profession.” CENSORED. This was deleted because it is both author abuse and goes beyond reasonable criticism of the piece to smear both the Guardian and the journalist.
In an opinion piece about the Oscars and LGBT people: “Oh dear. Can I award you the Oscar for the clunkiest metaphor in a wrong-headed Oscar-themed click-bait article?” ALLOWED. This is a mild case of author abuse and dismissive trolling. It was not blocked because it is more criticism of the article than the author. “Dismissive trolling” is usually blocked – comments like “Calm down, dear” or “On your hobby horse again, I see” which mock or otherwise dismiss the author or
Were her calculations any "blacker" than others? Or more "feminine"? No? Then why should anyone care? You might as well talk about someone's shoe size or the length of their nose.
Bill Nye is an entertainer, not a scientist. Millennials are, by definition, young, inexperienced people. That young people believe what a TV personality tells them is not exactly a news flash.
The labels just say that fees and taxes "varies by location". First off, is that even true of Federal fees and taxes? And secondly, how about a little transparency here, and link us to the anticipated extra costs of the government.
That's not even spying, that's just normal attempted media manipulation. I am shocked, shocked that there are bots on social media!
Here's the thing: regular voters aren't swayed by social media or advertisements, and it's regular, reliable voters who get the job done because they show up at the polls on time and properly documented.
Thanks for the article, it was very informative. However, it did not convince me that gerrymandering benefits the Republicans more than the Democrats.
Prior to 2010, the Democrats out-gerrymandered the Republicans 172 districts to 5. After the Republicans started sweeping the state elections, they out-gerrymandered the Democrats 193 districts to 44.
Seems like the Democrats had the better of it when they were in the majority. The problem is that Democrats are losing their majority, not that the Republicans are out-classing them at gerrymandering.
No doubt this, too, shall change. The pendulum swings.
According to the article, Sprint or T-Mobile aren't limited because those ISPs don't charge customers for overage. Maybe what needs to change are Verizon and AT&T's fee structures.
Imagine if there were 10 times as many busses on the road today. That would change the culture pretty quickly. It's all about the frequency.
... and they come across a neon sign that says, "Eat. At. Joes --->"
The preacher says, "Huh. Look, at that. It's a sign!" ... very interesting."
The scientist says, "Yes. It has glass, rubber, steel, paint, neon gas I presume
"Wait, what? My scientist friend, it's a sign."
"Well, we don't know that for sure, do we?"
"Of course it's a sign! It says, 'eat at Joes'."
"Well, who is this 'Joe'? Has anyone ever seen him? How do we know he exists?"
"...."
It's a bit more fluid than even your description of the process. What person would willingly submit themselves to be a supreme court nominee just for show? No one who is truly competent; skilled people hate to have skill trifled with. So, if the President finds someone willing, that someone is not going to have a stellar reputation. Then the court of public opinion will weigh in, and the Senate will find all the cover it needs to either just sit on the nomination and not put it on the calendar at all, or reject the nomination out of hand.
That is one of the most depressingly accurate comments, ever. Yes, of course this is "Interstate Commerce". Of what use is a written definition of anything anymore?
Mod parent up. We get the government we ALLOW. The federal government has no charter whatsoever to regulate this kind of thing.
His answer is the same as the founders of the U.S. Constitution: balance power with power, and RELY on actors to work only in their own self-interest. Competition among equals is a feature, not a bug.
You don't have to sell the truth, it sells itself. Conversely, if you find yourself having to sell something, it probably isn't the full truth.
Just sayin'
If he can code, then coding obviously isn't very hard; politicians generally aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.
I never understood this passion for teaching people to code. Writing code is like drawing with crayons, language-wise. In fact, it's problem is that it is too simple, so simple that there are absolutely no ambiguities or shades of meaning. Normal language speakers have to train themselves to NOT think normally, in order to code well. It's like giving a painter 64 crayons and telling him or her to draw the Mona Lisa. Well, that's 3 strokes of Blue, 1 of Yellow, 2 of Green, 1 of Purple and a dash of Black, then Grey. There. That's the color of that shaded portion under her right thumb.
I've written two such "languages" of my own, and have learned about six more. I never found any of them particularly difficult. Programming is thinking. Thinking -- not coding -- is what's hard.
Cut to the chase, Trump supporters. Upstream of using the Internet is thinking. Thinking leads to bad thoughts, and bad thoughts lead to bad acts. Our only hope now is to outlaw thinking. Do it now! For the children ...
I sat through the same, boring geometry class and HATED it. There was nothing to "solve", just memorize this recipe, and apply it to these problems. It couldn't have been less interesting. What use was a "proof"? What were you trying to prove, that you could memorize stuff?
Several years later, I came across Euclid in my college philosophy class, and suddenly geometry made sense -- as a logical system of thought. Precept followed precept, and the "proof" was to follow an unbroken line of logically sound statements that led you to a logically sound conclusion. It was a beautiful piece of work, absolutely brilliant.
As a long-time Cox customer, I hope they win this fight, but it may take more than a court case. There has to be some reasonable limits on take-down notices. You can't just send out literally millions of notices in huge batches, and expect the ISPs to just shut up while you flood their valued customers. You can't include legal threats and settlement proposals in your notices, your notice must FIRST be a request to remove the contested content. If we don't have these simple standards of reasonableness in place, our ISPs are just going to be conduits for shakedowns.
So, thank you, Cox, for once again showing everyone what an ethical ISP that cares about its customers acts like. Stay classy.
From the interview:
Q. But where did that first bit of self-referential information come from?
A. We of course know that all life on Earth has enormous amounts of information that comes from evolution, which allows information to grow slowly. Before evolution, you couldn’t have this process. As a consequence, the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance.
I'm sorry, but this answer is nearly incomprehensible. Information "comes from" evolution, which then "allows" it to "grow", but before evolution, you couldn't have any information? That doesn't even make sense. And, before evolution the first "piece" of information rose by "chance"? What does that even mean?
He's still talking about evolution, which a dead-end theory when you're talking about the origins of life, because you can't "evolve" something that doesn't already exist. Duh.
The Columbia river gorge in Washington state was carved from a series of cataclysmic floods, the largest of which carried 13 times the volume of the Amazon river.
Actually, when you don't know the scope in advance, you need to FLIP the estimate into a maximum allowed effort. Ask the customer how much they are willing to spend on the problem for now, and then do all that you can for that amount and cycle back. When you report how much you did, you'll also know much better how much is left to do. Then you can make another ask.
Works every time.
This
Edward Maibach, for example, is the Director of Climate Change Communication, and holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego, an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University, and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University. He teaches how to talk about climate, but he doesn't study it.
I put it at the time of Wilson and FDR, both big-government, proactive Presidents who represented a shift towards authoritarianism that the majority of the people wanted at the time.