The fact that you call it "Nixon's Mess" shows that you're precisely part of the partisan yammering class.
If you think Nixon was doing ONE THING that hadn't been done in spades by LBJ and Kennedy before him, you're hopelessly naive. Ike, perhaps not, but let's recall that - for example - Nixon's assertion that his tapes were inviolable Presidential material was BORN of his observation as a young congressman of the success of that tactic by Ike during the McCarthy hearings. (Ike *despised* McCarthy, and when State Dept files may have exonerated/validated some of his claims, Ike moved the cabinets wholesale into the Oval Office and claimed 'executive privilege' - an assertion the Senate witch hunters were happy to validate...).
When Tricky Dick tried it, the rules of course changed....
Haven't we heard this at least 3-4 times before? I mean, I've switched to 7 on my newer machines, but my couple of older ones (a minecraft server and a fileserver) are crunching away happily on XP because it's good enough and has low hardware requirements.
I can recall at least several previous instances where MS has publicly said they are going to 'stop supporting XP'...but the patches seem to keep rolling out?
Let's remember: "Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things. "One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.""
Here is THAT PhD's OPENING paragraph to her article: Who wouldn't want a job where you only have to work five hours a week, you get summers off, your whole job is reading and talking about books, and you can never be fired? Such is the enviable life of the tenured college literature professor, and all you have to do to get it is earn a Ph.D. So perhaps you, literature lover, are considering pursuing this path.
So let me see if I understand this - you didn't want a JOB, you wanted a FREE RIDE? And now you're whinging that your free ride didn't pay off, AND that your 'investment' in the free-ride track turned out to have screwed you.
You're like someone who invests in lottery-tickets and is pissed that they not only didn't get rich, but are now poor.
You may have a PhD, but I have to say it: you're a really stupid bitch.* *and I mean that in a gender-free sense, but I really do mean it.
An intelligent person comes to recognize that having a LITERATURE DEGREE isn't a route to financial security.
Wow. That's some insight.
(This reminds me of an interview I saw on NPR purporting to illustrate how "hard" times have gotten in Greece, that PhD's were waiting tables in restaurants and barely scraping by. Almost as an aside at the end of the interview, they asked him what his PhD was in - "Russian Literature". I almost crashed my car I was laughing so hard.)
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
Bullshit. I don't think Socialism is 'scary', it's just stupid and encourages people free-riding on the system. Nobody is a more cheerful free-rider than university students.
If we had a rigorous process by which people were vetted for their qualifications for college (and I don't mean politically-correct melanin-based diversity qualifications; I mean color-blind intellectual qualifications), I'd have no problem with publicly funding higher-education; we do through high school today and I personally believe that further education is required beyond the 19th-century standards our current public system is based on.
However, having also spend a fair amount of time at a couple of European universities I don't see them as producing particularly better students. There, you have a (metric) crapton of free-riders who don't really belong at a University, hiding there as long as they possibly can delay their maturation process - pretty much just like in the USA. However, in the US it used to be $-based, meaning at least somewhere in the process someone had to have accomplished something and earned enough $ to fund it. In Europe, it's just the constantly-milked-harder taxpayers who subsidize it all.
Now, quite frankly, considering the college-grant systems in place, the gross levels of loans given to students, and the current administration's policy capping loan repayment levels and forgiveness after 10 years (regardless of amount owed), the US system is nearly as socialized as the Euro system anyway, albeit warped substantially in favor of teachers and their unions... unsurprising since they are one of the most reliable Democratic electorates.
I'm as suspicious of the government as the next guy, and am frustrated as well by constant Fed overreaching as well as prosecutors that play fast&loose with the rules.
However, I'm not sure I buy this. There's a lot in the article that's *designed* to make him a sympathetic 'victim of the man' - I don't give a crap about his background, and how hard he works.
Taking his story at face value, I believe he probably DID 'keep his customers at arms length' - it only made sense to do so, when dealing with such a dangerous world.
However, it does sound like he had a fairly extravagant lifestyle (whether he'd extended himself out on credit to do so, as his defense asserted), AND the prosecution managed to convince 12 people of this.
The article is working very hard to make him out as a pure and innocent victim. It may mean he is, in fact, a pure and innocent victim. But I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone who tries to pull my sympathy-strings too hard.
I love how all the (high rated) posts here are about companies 'thinking outside the box' and 'needing to recognize talent' etc.
The fact is, the title could just as well have been "Steve Jobs' success was extraordinary; complete assholes STILL generally not preferred as employees, coworkers, or bosses."
Let's be honest, yes, Steve Jobs' success was extraordinary - whether that's a combination of talent or luck, is your call. But he was an asshole, and 99.9% of the time, assholes really aren't great to work with or for. HE wasn't great to work for, he was still a dick, it's just that he was successful.
But that begs the question, where really is the line for what's "indie"?
I mean, if you have a pile of money (say you inherited it) to do the development, is that therefore no longer 'indie' even if you're working alone and self-publishing? What if you're working alone, poor, and distribute through Steam? Is that "indie" enough? Or is Steam too corporate now? Or just convenient?
Of COURSE once something becomes trendy and cool (and financially successful...blame Notch), companies are going to try to exploit it. Look at 'grunge' music. Does that mean the niche is dead?
Seriously, if you're that paranoid about being traced, why even carry a cellphone?
Essentially, if you're going to turn off all the functions that allow connectivity, and disable the phone enough that you're *pretty sure* that you can't be traced, why are you even carrying it? It's going to be a non-functional pile of circuitry in your pocket, basically. If you're that concerned, then any time you turn it on you might be being traced, even if the radio function is allegedly "off".
I guess if you want to be able to call out in case of emergency, just buy a one-time phone and DON'T USE IT UNTIL YOU NEED TO. Then throw it away.
The original submission title was "Does Thinking Science Make People More Ethical?" (http://science.slashdot.org/submission/2572477/does-thinking-science-make-people-more-ethical?sdsrc=rel) and the Salon article was "Does studying science make you a better person?".
I'm curious to understand the motivations behind these successive laters of re-titling. It's not an effort at plagiarism; the original article is clearly referenced.
The studies: "The first featured 48 undergraduates who read a vignette describing a date rape. (In the story, John engages in âoenonconsensual sexâ with Sally.) They were then asked to judge Johnâ(TM)s behavior on a scale from 1 (completely justified) to 100 (totally wrong)." Without being given the vignette (And why not? Is there a shortage of column-inches available on the internet?) we cannot ourselves judge the 'neutrality' or other contexts of the story. I'd personally argue that date-rape, as a subject, is EXCEEDINGLY context-sensitive, and likely to be conflated with the 'static' expectations of male behavior, expectations of female behavior, the age of the subject, the cultural and home background of the subject, etc that it's nearly worthless as a barometer of anything.
Further tests: Participants were given 10 sets featuring five words apiece; they were instructed to throw one word out and arrange the other four to form a proper sentence. Half of them were given unscrambled sets of words that included such science-oriented terms as âoelogical,â âoehypothesis,â âoelaboratory,â âoescientistsâ and âoetheory.â Those who had the science-related words on their mind âoecondemned the act as more wrongâ than those who had unscrambled the neutral words, the researchers report.
Another group, featuring 32 students and community members, were asked how likely they were to take part in a list of community-minded activities over the next month. Those who had been exposed to the science-related words expressed a greater likelihood to give blood, do volunteer work and donate to charity.
A final group of 43 students and community members played an âoeeconomics dictator gameâ in which they were given $5 and told they could keep it all or give some of it to a stranger. Those exposed to the scientific terms allocated less money to themselves and more to the other person.
All of these then being plotted against one's self-declared religiosity?
While I *personally* believe that people with a scientific mindset ARE in fact probably better aware of larger chains of cause-effect, hypothesis-test-thesis, and other systematic ways of understanding the world (and thus, are likely to understand enlightened self-interest and the 'good of the many') this test alone was a) so vapid, b) so obviously engineered to draw a conclusion, and thus c) so obviously gamed, itself it hardly rates merit as drawing a conclusive result at all.
It's a question to which governments in general are always going to say "no" - it's in their self-interest (if a government can be said to have one; clearly the government often acts in ways that suggest its own existence is more important than anything else) to insist that ANYTHING - the friends we have, the heights of our doorknobs, and most certainly the fiat currency we use - *must* be regulated by government for it to have, well, currency.
Of course, allowing government to do so is a teensy act of abasement, and, I'd submit, a long way from what our Founding Fathers envisioned. (OK, maybe not Hamilton).
You might as well just stream it off your desktop. No, wait, you might have taken that suggestion seriously. That was a joke, that's probably the only video service that would actually suck worse than Vimeo.
Now if Roku would just accept/publish a standard so my universal remote - that controls EVERYTHING else in my a/v cabinet - can also take over from the forlorn little retarded Roku remote that I daren't possibly lose.*
*ok that's an exaggeration, I found an app for my android that lets me control it in a pinch, or when I want to piss off whoever's watching TV. I do wish it had a "here's what's being watched" scroll though.
It doesn't change your point - death by thousands of artillery shells is trivially different than death by atomic explosion - but it's not even certain that NK *has* a nuke.
None of their explosions have been 'clear'. The radioactivity has been minimal - hell, the first couple you could have gotten the same results smashing a ton of Fiestaware. The explosions are suspiciously small, micro-nukes if they were...but certainly within the realm of a couple of trainloads of TNT.
So no, I sincerely doubt that they even HAVE them, but it's been convenient for a number of different politically and financially interested parties in the West to act as if it was credible.
What seems, theoretically, to be a clever 'experiment' in market capitalism ends up, essentially, to be an exercise in voluntary slavery.
"Soon after the split, Merrill received a $100,000 life insurance policy as a new benefit at his customer-service job. Shareholders quickly decided that in the event of Merrillâ(TM)s death, the policy should be distributed among them. It opened up the possibility that, in financial terms, Merrill might be a more valuable asset if he were liquidated. Investors who had no personal connection to Merrill might be tempted to vote for him to jump off a bridge."
That's hilarious, because if, in fact, he was honestly following through with this experiment (and had, apparently, neglected to leave himself an out-clause), they should have had him jump off a bridge.
It's perhaps an illustrative lesson for CEOs of private companies who are considering taking their companies public. For a relatively small financial reward, you lose control of very important things.
Steel, cement, etc. - more dense than water - can be made into a shape that floats by GEOMETRY. The shape forces aside a mass of water that exceeds the mass of the steel.
But if you form an open structure like a cage, the steel immediately sinks, because the only water displaced is the actual volume of the steel.
If you form a cage out of wood, however, it will STILL FLOAT. (Because wood is intrinsically less dense than water - the mass of the volume of water pushed aside exceeds the mass of the wood, ergo it would float.)
This does NOT float up in air, therefore, the substance ITSELF is more dense than air. They are simply calculating 'density' by taking the mass divided by the outside dimensions...by that measure, my steel dog cage isn't much more dense than air, either.
And in other news, when asked about their jobs, EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET likewise responded that 80% of participants revealed that their job had negatively impacted their personal life in some way, (and) 18% have suffered stress-related health issues due to their work, and 28% have lost sleep due to work.
Here's my stupid question: if it's less dense than helium, and about 1/10 that of nitrogen (1.6 mg/cm3)...why is it pictured *sitting* on anything? Why doesn't it float away?
If, as I suspect, it's porous and it's being measured as 'less dense' than He only because they are taking the actual mass/OUTER VOLUME...well, that's not actual density is it? If so, then by this method my portable dog kennel (made of STEEL) is only an order of magnitude more dense than oxygen.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the idea is absurd, and smacks of a desperate attempt to show that any change must of course be BAD.
The meat is the tissue that supports the organism. Organisms are not going to just evolve giant, hollow shell bodies for no good purpose.
The fact that you call it "Nixon's Mess" shows that you're precisely part of the partisan yammering class.
If you think Nixon was doing ONE THING that hadn't been done in spades by LBJ and Kennedy before him, you're hopelessly naive. Ike, perhaps not, but let's recall that - for example - Nixon's assertion that his tapes were inviolable Presidential material was BORN of his observation as a young congressman of the success of that tactic by Ike during the McCarthy hearings. (Ike *despised* McCarthy, and when State Dept files may have exonerated/validated some of his claims, Ike moved the cabinets wholesale into the Oval Office and claimed 'executive privilege' - an assertion the Senate witch hunters were happy to validate...).
When Tricky Dick tried it, the rules of course changed....
Haven't we heard this at least 3-4 times before?
I mean, I've switched to 7 on my newer machines, but my couple of older ones (a minecraft server and a fileserver) are crunching away happily on XP because it's good enough and has low hardware requirements.
I can recall at least several previous instances where MS has publicly said they are going to 'stop supporting XP'...but the patches seem to keep rolling out?
Let's remember:
"Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
Unless there are muslims to assuage on the Moon, we're not going back.
Here is THAT PhD's OPENING paragraph to her article:
Who wouldn't want a job where you only have to work five hours a week, you get summers off, your whole job is reading and talking about books, and you can never be fired? Such is the enviable life of the tenured college literature professor, and all you have to do to get it is earn a Ph.D. So perhaps you, literature lover, are considering pursuing this path.
So let me see if I understand this - you didn't want a JOB, you wanted a FREE RIDE? And now you're whinging that your free ride didn't pay off, AND that your 'investment' in the free-ride track turned out to have screwed you.
You're like someone who invests in lottery-tickets and is pissed that they not only didn't get rich, but are now poor.
You may have a PhD, but I have to say it: you're a really stupid bitch.*
*and I mean that in a gender-free sense, but I really do mean it.
So you're saying that your personal academic interests aren't necessarily congruent with the REAL WORLD'S needs (and thus compensatory structures)?
That's unpossible!
An intelligent person comes to recognize that having a LITERATURE DEGREE isn't a route to financial security.
Wow. That's some insight.
(This reminds me of an interview I saw on NPR purporting to illustrate how "hard" times have gotten in Greece, that PhD's were waiting tables in restaurants and barely scraping by. Almost as an aside at the end of the interview, they asked him what his PhD was in - "Russian Literature". I almost crashed my car I was laughing so hard.)
Bullshit.
I don't think Socialism is 'scary', it's just stupid and encourages people free-riding on the system. Nobody is a more cheerful free-rider than university students.
If we had a rigorous process by which people were vetted for their qualifications for college (and I don't mean politically-correct melanin-based diversity qualifications; I mean color-blind intellectual qualifications), I'd have no problem with publicly funding higher-education; we do through high school today and I personally believe that further education is required beyond the 19th-century standards our current public system is based on.
However, having also spend a fair amount of time at a couple of European universities I don't see them as producing particularly better students. There, you have a (metric) crapton of free-riders who don't really belong at a University, hiding there as long as they possibly can delay their maturation process - pretty much just like in the USA. However, in the US it used to be $-based, meaning at least somewhere in the process someone had to have accomplished something and earned enough $ to fund it. In Europe, it's just the constantly-milked-harder taxpayers who subsidize it all.
Now, quite frankly, considering the college-grant systems in place, the gross levels of loans given to students, and the current administration's policy capping loan repayment levels and forgiveness after 10 years (regardless of amount owed), the US system is nearly as socialized as the Euro system anyway, albeit warped substantially in favor of teachers and their unions ... unsurprising since they are one of the most reliable Democratic electorates.
I have a palm titanium 3 or whatever the hell it's called, I'd be HAPPY to sell it to him.
I'm as suspicious of the government as the next guy, and am frustrated as well by constant Fed overreaching as well as prosecutors that play fast&loose with the rules.
However, I'm not sure I buy this.
There's a lot in the article that's *designed* to make him a sympathetic 'victim of the man' - I don't give a crap about his background, and how hard he works.
Taking his story at face value, I believe he probably DID 'keep his customers at arms length' - it only made sense to do so, when dealing with such a dangerous world.
However, it does sound like he had a fairly extravagant lifestyle (whether he'd extended himself out on credit to do so, as his defense asserted), AND the prosecution managed to convince 12 people of this.
The article is working very hard to make him out as a pure and innocent victim.
It may mean he is, in fact, a pure and innocent victim.
But I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone who tries to pull my sympathy-strings too hard.
Dunno, were the guns sent to the murderers as part of a government-supported effort?
I love how all the (high rated) posts here are about companies 'thinking outside the box' and 'needing to recognize talent' etc.
The fact is, the title could just as well have been "Steve Jobs' success was extraordinary; complete assholes STILL generally not preferred as employees, coworkers, or bosses."
Let's be honest, yes, Steve Jobs' success was extraordinary - whether that's a combination of talent or luck, is your call. But he was an asshole, and 99.9% of the time, assholes really aren't great to work with or for. HE wasn't great to work for, he was still a dick, it's just that he was successful.
But that begs the question, where really is the line for what's "indie"?
I mean, if you have a pile of money (say you inherited it) to do the development, is that therefore no longer 'indie' even if you're working alone and self-publishing?
What if you're working alone, poor, and distribute through Steam? Is that "indie" enough? Or is Steam too corporate now? Or just convenient?
Of COURSE once something becomes trendy and cool (and financially successful...blame Notch), companies are going to try to exploit it. Look at 'grunge' music. Does that mean the niche is dead?
Seriously, if you're that paranoid about being traced, why even carry a cellphone?
Essentially, if you're going to turn off all the functions that allow connectivity, and disable the phone enough that you're *pretty sure* that you can't be traced, why are you even carrying it? It's going to be a non-functional pile of circuitry in your pocket, basically. If you're that concerned, then any time you turn it on you might be being traced, even if the radio function is allegedly "off".
I guess if you want to be able to call out in case of emergency, just buy a one-time phone and DON'T USE IT UNTIL YOU NEED TO. Then throw it away.
FWIW you can just give them a fake number with wrong data, it doesn't confirm the details unless/until you try to buy something.
Likewise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25wviijhpQk
The original submission title was "Does Thinking Science Make People More Ethical?" (http://science.slashdot.org/submission/2572477/does-thinking-science-make-people-more-ethical?sdsrc=rel) and the Salon article was "Does studying science make you a better person?".
I'm curious to understand the motivations behind these successive laters of re-titling. It's not an effort at plagiarism; the original article is clearly referenced.
The studies:
"The first featured 48 undergraduates who read a vignette describing a date rape. (In the story, John engages in âoenonconsensual sexâ with Sally.) They were then asked to judge Johnâ(TM)s behavior on a scale from 1 (completely justified) to 100 (totally wrong)."
Without being given the vignette (And why not? Is there a shortage of column-inches available on the internet?) we cannot ourselves judge the 'neutrality' or other contexts of the story. I'd personally argue that date-rape, as a subject, is EXCEEDINGLY context-sensitive, and likely to be conflated with the 'static' expectations of male behavior, expectations of female behavior, the age of the subject, the cultural and home background of the subject, etc that it's nearly worthless as a barometer of anything.
Further tests:
Participants were given 10 sets featuring five words apiece; they were instructed to throw one word out and arrange the other four to form a proper sentence. Half of them were given unscrambled sets of words that included such science-oriented terms as âoelogical,â âoehypothesis,â âoelaboratory,â âoescientistsâ and âoetheory.â Those who had the science-related words on their mind âoecondemned the act as more wrongâ than those who had unscrambled the neutral words, the researchers report.
Another group, featuring 32 students and community members, were asked how likely they were to take part in a list of community-minded activities over the next month. Those who had been exposed to the science-related words expressed a greater likelihood to give blood, do volunteer work and donate to charity.
A final group of 43 students and community members played an âoeeconomics dictator gameâ in which they were given $5 and told they could keep it all or give some of it to a stranger. Those exposed to the scientific terms allocated less money to themselves and more to the other person.
All of these then being plotted against one's self-declared religiosity?
While I *personally* believe that people with a scientific mindset ARE in fact probably better aware of larger chains of cause-effect, hypothesis-test-thesis, and other systematic ways of understanding the world (and thus, are likely to understand enlightened self-interest and the 'good of the many') this test alone was a) so vapid, b) so obviously engineered to draw a conclusion, and thus c) so obviously gamed, itself it hardly rates merit as drawing a conclusive result at all.
It's a question to which governments in general are always going to say "no" - it's in their self-interest (if a government can be said to have one; clearly the government often acts in ways that suggest its own existence is more important than anything else) to insist that ANYTHING - the friends we have, the heights of our doorknobs, and most certainly the fiat currency we use - *must* be regulated by government for it to have, well, currency.
Of course, allowing government to do so is a teensy act of abasement, and, I'd submit, a long way from what our Founding Fathers envisioned. (OK, maybe not Hamilton).
Dear Everyone-that-wants-to-post-something,
Vimeo sucks balls. Please stop.
You might as well just stream it off your desktop. No, wait, you might have taken that suggestion seriously. That was a joke, that's probably the only video service that would actually suck worse than Vimeo.
Thanks,
-Styopa
Now if Roku would just accept/publish a standard so my universal remote - that controls EVERYTHING else in my a/v cabinet - can also take over from the forlorn little retarded Roku remote that I daren't possibly lose.*
*ok that's an exaggeration, I found an app for my android that lets me control it in a pinch, or when I want to piss off whoever's watching TV. I do wish it had a "here's what's being watched" scroll though.
It doesn't change your point - death by thousands of artillery shells is trivially different than death by atomic explosion - but it's not even certain that NK *has* a nuke.
None of their explosions have been 'clear'.
The radioactivity has been minimal - hell, the first couple you could have gotten the same results smashing a ton of Fiestaware.
The explosions are suspiciously small, micro-nukes if they were...but certainly within the realm of a couple of trainloads of TNT.
So no, I sincerely doubt that they even HAVE them, but it's been convenient for a number of different politically and financially interested parties in the West to act as if it was credible.
...and this just proves it.
What seems, theoretically, to be a clever 'experiment' in market capitalism ends up, essentially, to be an exercise in voluntary slavery.
"Soon after the split, Merrill received a $100,000 life insurance policy as a new benefit at his customer-service job. Shareholders quickly decided that in the event of Merrillâ(TM)s death, the policy should be distributed among them. It opened up the possibility that, in financial terms, Merrill might be a more valuable asset if he were liquidated. Investors who had no personal connection to Merrill might be tempted to vote for him to jump off a bridge."
That's hilarious, because if, in fact, he was honestly following through with this experiment (and had, apparently, neglected to leave himself an out-clause), they should have had him jump off a bridge.
It's perhaps an illustrative lesson for CEOs of private companies who are considering taking their companies public. For a relatively small financial reward, you lose control of very important things.
Read my post.
Steel, cement, etc. - more dense than water - can be made into a shape that floats by GEOMETRY. The shape forces aside a mass of water that exceeds the mass of the steel.
But if you form an open structure like a cage, the steel immediately sinks, because the only water displaced is the actual volume of the steel.
If you form a cage out of wood, however, it will STILL FLOAT. (Because wood is intrinsically less dense than water - the mass of the volume of water pushed aside exceeds the mass of the wood, ergo it would float.)
This does NOT float up in air, therefore, the substance ITSELF is more dense than air. They are simply calculating 'density' by taking the mass divided by the outside dimensions...by that measure, my steel dog cage isn't much more dense than air, either.
And in other news, when asked about their jobs, EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET likewise responded that 80% of participants revealed that their job had negatively impacted their personal life in some way, (and) 18% have suffered stress-related health issues due to their work, and 28% have lost sleep due to work.
Oh noes, sysadmins have tough jobs! Please.
Here's my stupid question: if it's less dense than helium, and about 1/10 that of nitrogen (1.6 mg/cm3)...why is it pictured *sitting* on anything? Why doesn't it float away?
If, as I suspect, it's porous and it's being measured as 'less dense' than He only because they are taking the actual mass/OUTER VOLUME...well, that's not actual density is it? If so, then by this method my portable dog kennel (made of STEEL) is only an order of magnitude more dense than oxygen.