Ignorant, but useful in identifying the idiots who oversimplify things either because they're aggressively stupid (every adult should pretty much understand that NOTHING is quite as simple as single-answer solution), or disingenuously answering based on their politics, religion, or some other dogma that is more important to them than candor.
Although I'm pretty sure this is caused solely by Global Warming.
I'd only amend: "The streams from these "cop cameras" have to be restricted so that they can only be accessed by the officer's supervisors and with a subpoena..." to add: "...or if a complaint is lodged against the officer."
Personally, while I understand that cops abuse their power occasionally (and that sort of behavior needs IMMEDIATE and severe punishment), I find that the amount of bullshit, lies, and general grief that police GET from the public is nearly unending. Frankly, I'm surprised more cops DON'T just haul off and taze more people, if not shoot them. I know I would (which is how I know I'd suck at being a cop).
- a momentary burst to your ego when you 'stick it to the man', or
- the respect of your coworkers (because you know who's going to get your crap dumped in their laps, right?), the respect of your employer (yes, we've all heard of companies all firing people instantly, but that tends to be for-cause firing), and the knowledge that you did the right thing whether you "had to" or not?
Not to mention the most heavily over-regulated, eco-nut dominated state in the union.
The protests against it for every reason from noise pollution to the presence of some endangered skink in a ditch on the route will alone prevent this project from ever reaching fruition.
Isn't this supposed to be built in the right-of-way for highways designed for vehicles going at 70mph, but now we have vehicles going 600mph?
Sure, you're not engineering against the traction-value of tires on pavement, but there's going to be some significant discomfort going through those turns.
"Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said."...which was viewed as a successful test of the US's surveillance systems in Germany, according to the NSA.
Of course it's a military coup. Anyone who claims it isn't is either an idiot or is trying to spin it for the "simple folk".
In this case, it's a military coup that we LIKE because we prefer military juntas to reactionary religious extremists.
Claiming it's not a military coup because some idiots think that "all military coups are bad" is simply catering to the simpletons who believe things like "all democracy is good" or "all Arabs/Jews are bad" (whichever), etc. In the REAL WORLD, things aren't quite so black and white as the dimwitted public seems to prefer.
The problem is that in our 'classless' society, we seem to believe that EVERYONE needs to be some sort of intellectual, enjoying reading Shakespeare or knowing the dates of important things in history. I mean, EVERYONE should go to college, right?
The fact is, of course, 95% of everyone could get along very nicely never doing either. In fact, we'd be far better off if we somehow 'decided' that knowing how to do plumbing, how to farm, or how to be an electrician was somehow just as 'valued' as Shakespeare?
OK then let's step up to the "hard questions" then.
Let's assume that tomorrow we invent a super vaccine that cures the worst diseases in the world; according to WHO, Malaria, Tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS kills 5.4 million people every year. Simultaneously, let's assume that we've somehow solved the world's food distribution problems.
What then?
I know it sounds callous to say so, but that's probably why this difficult question never gets seriously addressed: if the bulk of the people dying to disease and starvation didn't, isn't the result just... MORE starvation, conflict, and misery?
Why would an ambulance take you across the country? That's idiotic.
You realize that you likely ALREADY get your health insurance from an out-of-state company, yes? They're just forced today to offer 50 different plans for 50 different sets of state laws.
You DO understand the concept of regionalization, right?
Car rental places charge differently for the same model of car, depending on the various regions of the country. Fast-food restaurants charge different prices for a burger in NY than rural West Nowhere.
I strongly believe that insurers would offer plans with graduated prices based on your region of residence, but harmonizing these plans would significantly reduce overhead, legal costs, and a host of other complications.
So somehow changing an indubitably male character into a woman is a 'victory' for women?
Perhaps we could just work on creating an interesting, engaging, successful female character and celebrate her? Or celebrate one of the many strong female characters already present in media?
Perhaps there's a moral in here for the whole feminist movement.
What's even dumber is the concept of state-level exchanges. A primary driver of high health-care costs is the balkanization of healthcare across states.
Allow the voluntary harmonization of various states' health care codes, which would in turn allow insurance providers to offer the same plan in several states. The 'health care exchanges' offered in the Obamacare bill would have been a perfect opportunity to allow capitalism to work to lower costs and increase competitive pressures - this plan merely ossifies the state-level segmentation of the marketplace.
I think the previous poster's point was figurative, not literal; they were saying that it's been rebranded as "dolphin" (ala 'fun, playful sea creature that does tricks for humans') as opposed to the murderous-sounding 'killer whale'. For people - who are roughly the same size/shape of the orcas' main prey animals - to get into a tank with them is either insanity or a staggering level of naivete.
So aside from your pedantry, their point was correct: that they are top-tier predators who probably haven't "humanistic" sensibilities about killing another living creature.*
*there are giant swathes of humanity that likewise don't have such sensibilities, and to be absolutely honest, dolphins aren't necessarily the charming, lovable, "smiling" playful ocean clowns they've been portrayed as, either. #brutalgangrapistsofthesea
John Carmack was a brilliant hardware/software dude in the 1990s and 2000s. I'm having trouble being certain of his relevance today.
His company produced one of the greatest, genre-introducing games ever...but what has he done lately?
Cdr Keen - absolutely brilliant Wolfenstein 3d - 1992 - breakthrough game Doom 1993? - novel, a big evolutionary step forward. Quake 1996 - another huge advance in rendering, net coding Doom 2/Quake 2 were not substantial steps forward. D2 was meh; Q2 I believe did have a rather revolutionarily-open design welcoming modding. Doom3 - essentially D(1), but on 10 year newer hardware. Gameplay was indistinquishable from D1. Rage - a flop, from the use of gigantic outdoor textures (whose render-farm requirements pretty much excluded their massive modding fanbase) to a console-focused development, and gameplay that was utterly a repeat of previous iD titles (and other games in the market like Fallout, etc)
More triangles in the scene (and curves, and textures, and lens flare, and 15 different flavors of "pitch black") is more a direct credit to Nvidia/AMD than to Mr Carmack, and I don't see that anything since Quake 2 (arguably, Quake 1) is really a monumental advance forward.
1996-2013...17 years is a helluva dry spell, and the fact he still gets attention speaks more to the reverence the community STILL holds for what he created than anything he seems to be creating.
Don't get me wrong, I still respect the guy, who doesn't? But he's massively rich and doesn't seem to be hungry anymore. He seemed to go off down a "handheld gaming" gopher-hole for a number of years...I guess I just wish he could pull another rabbit out of the hat and make me give a shit about an iD product again.
In real, grownup life (ie not "ivory tower academia") we all spend time working every day with people who may or may not PRECISELY agree with everything we believe.
The fact is that Senator Inhofe can be useful to Google in a number of contexts unrelated to either of their positions on climate change.
I have friends that are both Christians and Atheists, am I too supposed to refuse to associate with one group or the other based on which side of that fence I personally stand on?
The sort of zealotry that informs 'public posturing' like this is corrosive, and indicative of a sort of Manichean worldview that is never constructive.
Google would be best advised just to simply ignore with no comment. If those "scientists and policy researchers " no longer want to be associated with Google, they can simply refrain from participating then.
Total personal income (all) for the US in 2012: $13,401,868,693,000. Divided by the current population of the US (312 million) = $43,000 yr.
Working for 11.50/hour = $23,000/yr. 2 jobs = $46,000 yr.
So we see, the goal of Democrats is to make sure that wealth and income is distributed absolutely equally, with everyone working 2 shitty 40-hour jobs.
The problem with the original article was that the writer asserted effect for cause: "....Why exactly is the uncertainty principle so misused? No doubt our sensationalist and mystery-mongering culture is partly responsible...."
No, we have a sensationalist and mystery-mongering culture for the same reason we have superstition: fundamental human ignorance, and a failure of the educational system.
It's part of (I believe) a basic function of the human brain to try to organize and explain the environment around them. Lacking a known understanding, this drops to the default state of 'make shit up that reasonably fits the observations'.
Of course, whether one 'gets' the uncertainty principle may or may not be considered fundamental science education; I'd rather argue not. Nevertheless, the point is that with a firm grounding in basic sciences, EXPLAINING the uncertainty principle should be reasonably possible.
To the point of the poster, I don't believe 'equations' would have really made a difference in the presentation. I agree with the article's author that "measurement" is not intrinsic to the uncertainty principle, and in a sense it confuses it by getting 'down in the weeds'.
In my experience - and I'm hardly science-illiterate - equations 'lock in' relationships and are absolutely necessary for understanding, but equations are rarely useful in EXPLAINING something in general principles. In the same sense: explaining a game is usually is easier than throwing a rulebook at someone and telling them to "figure it out"
Let me see if I understand this: A centralized, bureaucratic, government-run program is sclerotically unresponsive to the market, cost-inefficient, and ultimately impairs the ability of - individuals to get the care they need - professionals to get compensated to the degree due based on current practices, technology, understanding, etc. - competitive forces to keep prices down....seriously?
That's unpossible. I'd ask my friend Adam Smith to comment, but I think he's banned from Slashdot.
You couldn't know it, but my calculus includes a family home with teenagers (themselves a risk group IMO) as well as one adult diagnosed and medicated as a depressive (not me).
Simultaneously we live in a 99.3% white rural community of 1500 in an affluent county in Minnesota. Our risk factors being the target for a home break-in or armed robbery are about as low as anywhere in the US.
While I agree with your point ceteris paribus, there is little imminent threat and strong reasons not to own one at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorant, but useful in identifying the idiots who oversimplify things either because they're aggressively stupid (every adult should pretty much understand that NOTHING is quite as simple as single-answer solution), or disingenuously answering based on their politics, religion, or some other dogma that is more important to them than candor.
Although I'm pretty sure this is caused solely by Global Warming.
Is it just me, or are we starting to use "drone" for pretty much anything that doesn't have a pilot actually sitting in it today?
AFAIK, "drone" is really an autonomous vehicle that for at least SOME of its flight time, it's not directly under pilot control.
I mean, it sure SOUNDS a lot cooler to say they use a "drone" than "a big radio control plane".
Your boss was a jerk, but I heard he gave handjobs pretty much whenever you wanted. That's a perk.
I'd only amend:
"The streams from these "cop cameras" have to be restricted so that they can only be accessed by the officer's supervisors and with a subpoena..."
to add: "...or if a complaint is lodged against the officer."
Personally, while I understand that cops abuse their power occasionally (and that sort of behavior needs IMMEDIATE and severe punishment), I find that the amount of bullshit, lies, and general grief that police GET from the public is nearly unending. Frankly, I'm surprised more cops DON'T just haul off and taze more people, if not shoot them. I know I would (which is how I know I'd suck at being a cop).
...which is more important?:
- a momentary burst to your ego when you 'stick it to the man', or
- the respect of your coworkers (because you know who's going to get your crap dumped in their laps, right?), the respect of your employer (yes, we've all heard of companies all firing people instantly, but that tends to be for-cause firing), and the knowledge that you did the right thing whether you "had to" or not?
Not to mention the most heavily over-regulated, eco-nut dominated state in the union.
The protests against it for every reason from noise pollution to the presence of some endangered skink in a ditch on the route will alone prevent this project from ever reaching fruition.
Isn't this supposed to be built in the right-of-way for highways designed for vehicles going at 70mph, but now we have vehicles going 600mph?
Sure, you're not engineering against the traction-value of tires on pavement, but there's going to be some significant discomfort going through those turns.
Perhaps by "simple folk" I was specifically referring to CONGRESS?
"...they are simply trying to avoid obeying the law...."
Nice Freudian slip there.
"Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said." ...which was viewed as a successful test of the US's surveillance systems in Germany, according to the NSA.
Of course it's a military coup. Anyone who claims it isn't is either an idiot or is trying to spin it for the "simple folk".
In this case, it's a military coup that we LIKE because we prefer military juntas to reactionary religious extremists.
Claiming it's not a military coup because some idiots think that "all military coups are bad" is simply catering to the simpletons who believe things like "all democracy is good" or "all Arabs/Jews are bad" (whichever), etc. In the REAL WORLD, things aren't quite so black and white as the dimwitted public seems to prefer.
...because the moment something like this is identified, it will be gamed.
The problem is that in our 'classless' society, we seem to believe that EVERYONE needs to be some sort of intellectual, enjoying reading Shakespeare or knowing the dates of important things in history. I mean, EVERYONE should go to college, right?
The fact is, of course, 95% of everyone could get along very nicely never doing either. In fact, we'd be far better off if we somehow 'decided' that knowing how to do plumbing, how to farm, or how to be an electrician was somehow just as 'valued' as Shakespeare?
OK then let's step up to the "hard questions" then.
Let's assume that tomorrow we invent a super vaccine that cures the worst diseases in the world; according to WHO, Malaria, Tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS kills 5.4 million people every year.
Simultaneously, let's assume that we've somehow solved the world's food distribution problems.
What then?
I know it sounds callous to say so, but that's probably why this difficult question never gets seriously addressed: if the bulk of the people dying to disease and starvation didn't, isn't the result just ... MORE starvation, conflict, and misery?
I don't have an answer.
Why would an ambulance take you across the country? That's idiotic.
You realize that you likely ALREADY get your health insurance from an out-of-state company, yes? They're just forced today to offer 50 different plans for 50 different sets of state laws.
You DO understand the concept of regionalization, right?
Car rental places charge differently for the same model of car, depending on the various regions of the country. Fast-food restaurants charge different prices for a burger in NY than rural West Nowhere.
I strongly believe that insurers would offer plans with graduated prices based on your region of residence, but harmonizing these plans would significantly reduce overhead, legal costs, and a host of other complications.
So somehow changing an indubitably male character into a woman is a 'victory' for women?
Perhaps we could just work on creating an interesting, engaging, successful female character and celebrate her? Or celebrate one of the many strong female characters already present in media?
Perhaps there's a moral in here for the whole feminist movement.
What's even dumber is the concept of state-level exchanges.
A primary driver of high health-care costs is the balkanization of healthcare across states.
Allow the voluntary harmonization of various states' health care codes, which would in turn allow insurance providers to offer the same plan in several states. The 'health care exchanges' offered in the Obamacare bill would have been a perfect opportunity to allow capitalism to work to lower costs and increase competitive pressures - this plan merely ossifies the state-level segmentation of the marketplace.
I think the previous poster's point was figurative, not literal; they were saying that it's been rebranded as "dolphin" (ala 'fun, playful sea creature that does tricks for humans') as opposed to the murderous-sounding 'killer whale'. For people - who are roughly the same size/shape of the orcas' main prey animals - to get into a tank with them is either insanity or a staggering level of naivete.
So aside from your pedantry, their point was correct: that they are top-tier predators who probably haven't "humanistic" sensibilities about killing another living creature.*
*there are giant swathes of humanity that likewise don't have such sensibilities, and to be absolutely honest, dolphins aren't necessarily the charming, lovable, "smiling" playful ocean clowns they've been portrayed as, either. #brutalgangrapistsofthesea
So by this logic then, it makes sense because WW2 started in the tropics and desert! (Oh wait, no it didn't.)
Well, WW1 then certainly? ...ah, no.
John Carmack was a brilliant hardware/software dude in the 1990s and 2000s.
I'm having trouble being certain of his relevance today.
His company produced one of the greatest, genre-introducing games ever ...but what has he done lately?
Cdr Keen - absolutely brilliant
Wolfenstein 3d - 1992 - breakthrough game
Doom 1993? - novel, a big evolutionary step forward.
Quake 1996 - another huge advance in rendering, net coding
Doom 2/Quake 2 were not substantial steps forward. D2 was meh; Q2 I believe did have a rather revolutionarily-open design welcoming modding.
Doom3 - essentially D(1), but on 10 year newer hardware. Gameplay was indistinquishable from D1.
Rage - a flop, from the use of gigantic outdoor textures (whose render-farm requirements pretty much excluded their massive modding fanbase) to a console-focused development, and gameplay that was utterly a repeat of previous iD titles (and other games in the market like Fallout, etc)
More triangles in the scene (and curves, and textures, and lens flare, and 15 different flavors of "pitch black") is more a direct credit to Nvidia/AMD than to Mr Carmack, and I don't see that anything since Quake 2 (arguably, Quake 1) is really a monumental advance forward.
1996-2013...17 years is a helluva dry spell, and the fact he still gets attention speaks more to the reverence the community STILL holds for what he created than anything he seems to be creating.
Don't get me wrong, I still respect the guy, who doesn't? But he's massively rich and doesn't seem to be hungry anymore. He seemed to go off down a "handheld gaming" gopher-hole for a number of years...I guess I just wish he could pull another rabbit out of the hat and make me give a shit about an iD product again.
In real, grownup life (ie not "ivory tower academia") we all spend time working every day with people who may or may not PRECISELY agree with everything we believe.
The fact is that Senator Inhofe can be useful to Google in a number of contexts unrelated to either of their positions on climate change.
I have friends that are both Christians and Atheists, am I too supposed to refuse to associate with one group or the other based on which side of that fence I personally stand on?
The sort of zealotry that informs 'public posturing' like this is corrosive, and indicative of a sort of Manichean worldview that is never constructive.
Google would be best advised just to simply ignore with no comment. If those "scientists and policy researchers " no longer want to be associated with Google, they can simply refrain from participating then.
It makes sense, actually.
Total personal income (all) for the US in 2012: $13,401,868,693,000.
Divided by the current population of the US (312 million)
= $43,000 yr.
Working for 11.50/hour = $23,000/yr. 2 jobs = $46,000 yr.
So we see, the goal of Democrats is to make sure that wealth and income is distributed absolutely equally, with everyone working 2 shitty 40-hour jobs.
Then, FINALLY, it will all be "fair"!
The problem with the original article was that the writer asserted effect for cause: ..."
"....Why exactly is the uncertainty principle so misused? No doubt our sensationalist and mystery-mongering culture is partly responsible.
No, we have a sensationalist and mystery-mongering culture for the same reason we have superstition: fundamental human ignorance, and a failure of the educational system.
It's part of (I believe) a basic function of the human brain to try to organize and explain the environment around them. Lacking a known understanding, this drops to the default state of 'make shit up that reasonably fits the observations'.
Of course, whether one 'gets' the uncertainty principle may or may not be considered fundamental science education; I'd rather argue not. Nevertheless, the point is that with a firm grounding in basic sciences, EXPLAINING the uncertainty principle should be reasonably possible.
To the point of the poster, I don't believe 'equations' would have really made a difference in the presentation. I agree with the article's author that "measurement" is not intrinsic to the uncertainty principle, and in a sense it confuses it by getting 'down in the weeds'.
In my experience - and I'm hardly science-illiterate - equations 'lock in' relationships and are absolutely necessary for understanding, but equations are rarely useful in EXPLAINING something in general principles. In the same sense: explaining a game is usually is easier than throwing a rulebook at someone and telling them to "figure it out"
Let me see if I understand this: A centralized, bureaucratic, government-run program is sclerotically unresponsive to the market, cost-inefficient, and ultimately impairs the ability of ...seriously?
- individuals to get the care they need
- professionals to get compensated to the degree due based on current practices, technology, understanding, etc.
- competitive forces to keep prices down.
That's unpossible. I'd ask my friend Adam Smith to comment, but I think he's banned from Slashdot.
It's not just 'secret NSA spying'.
Tort reform? You'll find the naysayers got at LEAST 2x from the legal community PACs and lobbyists.
More loans and grants for education, or student loan forgiveness? You'll find that the ones in favor got piles of money from Teacher Unions.
Minimum wage? Unionization? Defense spending?
As the old saying goes: Follow the Money.
opensecrets.org.
You couldn't know it, but my calculus includes a family home with teenagers (themselves a risk group IMO) as well as one adult diagnosed and medicated as a depressive (not me).
Simultaneously we live in a 99.3% white rural community of 1500 in an affluent county in Minnesota. Our risk factors being the target for a home break-in or armed robbery are about as low as anywhere in the US.
While I agree with your point ceteris paribus, there is little imminent threat and strong reasons not to own one at this time.