Do they really think that the buyer of a malignant ad will be "V.Putin"? No, of course they will (as they do today) put them behind meaningless, disposable, untraceable front organizations. So that's pointless.
And "who they're targeted against"? Aren't most political ad buys today "issue ads" where no candidate is named but a side is promoted?
Finally, John McCain can hardly be called an element of bipartisan politics; he's been pissy since he felt pushed aside from "his turn" by Bush II, to say nothing of his visceral hatred of Trump (who is a RINO anyway)...
...except these same paranoid people cheerfully carry around 24/7 a portable high-resolution audio and video recording device that we've all known can be activated remotely, have all their most personal and intimate data on it, as well as a GPS tracker AND PAY FOR THE BANDWIDTH THEMSELVES./people
I say "I'm not sure global warming is real" and get modded -4, Troll.
^this comment like the above, ends up at 0 or 1. Yay, slashdot.
And the the previous poster: "Listen, asshole: the RUSSIAN ASSHOLES have been 'fucking around in our country and elections since 1917. Maybe you can figure out why it started then by yourself?
And if I'd known what frothing histrionics it would send people like you into, I'd cheerfully have voted for him, yes.
The audacity of Apple giving some minimum-wage tech schlub the title of "Genius" says *everything* about Apple, its branding, and the customers it serves.
One might almost believe that narrative was...fake news?
The Guardian article mentions that basically their efforts were to show division, not particularly meddle in the election. Their funding supported mainly Texas independence (ludicrous), gun rights, and racial issues, particularly black lives matter protests. This is pretty much what Russian Intel has done for years; the history of kgb funding for anti American, labor, and leftist movements in Europe and the USA has been well documented historically.
The notion that they put $80k into this just suggests how little they expected of it.
Sorry, that's a beautiful comment generally, but no matter how artfully and confidently delivered, bullshit is bullshit.
1) The Atlantic isn't boiling, safe to say.
2) "...if the cycle continues to expand in years it is a direct result of rapid climate change..." You simply assert this as fact, as if people won't notice the "pulled from one's ass" smell?
3) "...he extended duration of the last cycle cause the Pacific blob, a patch of warmer water much further north in the Pacific, something never seen before...." because we've only paid this detailed attention to weather for perhaps 150 years, only had satellites watching generally for 50, and only had satellites that could see this sort of information for what, 20? 30? "Never seen before" loses a lot of its power when you point out that "never" is only about 30 years.
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Ice core data shows previous spikes in both CO2 and temp *very* comparable both in magnitude and frequency, several times in the last million years. Please feel free to share your theories on how a) such systemic and durable CO2/temp spikes happened 130, 225, 275, 410, and 610 kyears ago before there were SUVs or even Republicans. (Although, honestly, I'm going to guess most Paleofauna was Republican. It just makes sense.) Heck, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... suggests this has been happening more or less the last 2.5 million years.
5) "As a direct result of these rapid changes we can expect a much more violent climate." Nope - another one of those ass-umptions. In fact, to use hurricanes as an example, the last decades have been some of the *quietest* in the modern record because hurricanes require energy AND a lack of high level winds - it's unclear if warming may actually enhance these winds, breaking up more hurricanes than usual. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/#1cbd7067f4de)
6) "...nothing we can do about it accept try to reduce the use of fossil fuels to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2.." I was wondering when you'd make the begged anthropogenic connection. Almost as guaranteed as you blaming this somehow on Trump. Wait for it....
7) "...sudden atmospheric imbalance of gases..." That sounds ominous. Then again, we're talking about 3.75% (the manmade bit) of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2. 15 parts per million. Oh no.
8) "...short sighted greedy assholes..." Darn them! I wish they'd wear silly hats or some way we could identify them.
9) "...next phase of Trumpification...Make America Great Again is the biggest lie..." ahh, there it is. It's almost a sexual release when it finally arrives.
You started quite cogent (but still wrong) and ended up in a pretty standard virtue-signalling froth.
OK, so now lackluster fall colors are the fault of global warming?
Funny, driving the last couple of weeks through MN, and I thought the colors were particularly vibrant this year. In fact, I've commented aloud that it's like being in a Bob Ross painting.
"the fundamental assertion is that expensive software costs less than free software"
You claim this as imbecility. I'd say it's an obvious statement of fact that anyone can understand: free doesn't necessarily mean "free".
Sure, the CODE is free.
What if installers/maintainers cost 50% more, and it requires 30% more maintenance? What if everyone using it takes 50% longer to accomplish what they're doing? What if simply distributing it requires training time for everyone in your organization that otherwise they wouldn't need?
I have no dog in this fight. I couldn't give a flying crap if Munich runs Linux, MS software, OS/2, or iOS to run their city. I don't know if Linux ran well or shitty, or if MS has bought the city administrators all hookers and blow to get the contract. No idea.
What I do know is that simply demanding that "free is always cheaper than not-free" is likely bullshit, and the louder and angrier someone insists that's so, the more likely I'm going to suspect they're trying to sell me something themselves.
"...his stature and accomplishments should be taken into account before people start dissing his opinions...." Sure. Then again, if the Nobel Committee wants their winners to carry some de facto credibility from their award, they need to give the prize to more people like him, and fewer prizes based on virtue signalling.
"We've found you SO insubordinate that we have to FIRE you from the company. But yes, we trust you Mr NetAdmin, to take your company laptop home with you."
Jesus. He's in trouble, but I hope for humanity's sake THEY didn't reproduce.
The ashfall of previous eruptions, while major and terrible, suggest such an eruption wouldn't be exterminatory, not even for the western US. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc...
Quote: Blade Runner (a movie) is a science fiction novella by Beat Generation author William S. Burroughs, first published in 1979.[1] The novella began as a story treatment for a proposed film adaptation of Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner. (Some sources describe Burroughs' work as a closet screenplay.) A later edition published in the 1980s changed the formatting of the title to Blade Runner, a movie. Burroughs' treatment is set in early 21st century and involves mutated viruses and "a medical-care apocalypse". The term "blade runner" referred to a smuggler of medical supplies, e.g. scalpels. No film was ever made; the title Blade Runner was later bought for use in Ridley Scott's 1982 science fiction film, Blade Runner.[1] The plot of that film was based on Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and not the Nourse, Burroughs source material, although the film does incorporate the term "blade runner" into dialogue.
Unfortunately for the solar-zealots Solar is getting something like 400x the subsidies per MW/h as coal...you really ok with dropping them and letting the market decide?
I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. One could say it's seminal to my movie-going experience: I'm 50, so from the audience that snuck into theaters to see it (I was 15-16 when it released).
I found BR2049 merely ok. I think there was in fact a good film somewhere in there, but it takes a lot of work to sift it from the dross.
I'm not buying the OP's point that the 'tired old story' was what dragged this down. All of the things that really hurt this film were ALL directorial choices. - pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter. Long, drawn out, frankly dull establishing shots were self-indulgent and just felt like you're watching someone show you the 100th slide of their family vacation. It's interesting at first, but ultimately you just DON'T CARE ANYMORE. It's not THAT cool. - focus: part of the above, partly its own thing. Don't get me wrong, I've long since gotten past my Ridley Scott fandom (Prometheus? Fuck you Ridley I want my $ back), but a terrific choice he made in the first film is to spend relatively little focus on the tech of the era. Sure it's there, and he can't help but notice, but he's not obsessing over the flying cars, etc like BR2049 did. - product placement: I don't give a shit if Peugot dumped a pile of $ at you. Stop shoving brands in my face. Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film. - the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately. - pointless plots and characters: Why was Leto even IN this film? As a foil, he did literally nothing except kick a dog (a dog we didn't care at all about, btw, so pointless). - enormous plot holes - the murder in the police station went rather more smoothly than I'd imagine it would; if replicants reproducing is such a earth-shattering thing why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses? I have to imagine engineering OUT the 'rag once a month' would (have been) advantageous to the utility of replicants generally? - the flying car dogfight? Jesus. I don't know where they were going with Deckard (or why?), but if you're fleeing pursuit, here's hint: turn off the 100k-watt cabin lights that make you a lighthouse? Guns on police flying cars?
It would be pretty bad, but not "fucked". https://geneticliteracyproject... 1) 60% of US crops grow fine without bees. "...Wheat, corn and rice are wind-pollinated. Lettuce, beans and tomatoes are self-pollinated. The 12 crops that worldwide furnish nearly 90 percent of the worldâ(TM)s food â" rice, wheat, maize (corn), sorghums, millets, rye, and barley, and potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassavas or maniocs, bananas and coconuts â" are wind pollinated, self-pollinated or are propagated asexually or develop without the need for fertilization (parthenocarpically)...." 2) of that remaining 40%, not all of the plants require insect pollination; some are merely benefited by it in better yields but can do without. 3) LOTS of insects pollinate that remaining 40%. https://www.thoughtco.com/inse...
Learn to understand scales. What you're talking about is basically noise.
Did you even look at my link? Note the scales changing on the x-axis. Your data DOES appear.
Yours from Skeptical Science (a good site, btw) show scales of decades and one with centuries. I'm talking 1000+ year scales. Look at the 20ky-200ky span. Pulse...decline....pulse....decline...pulse....decline.... What do YOU think would come next in that series?
"...the benefit depends on viewing the screen from an ideal distance..." Actually, that only matters if FIRST the content is either delivered at that resolution or upsampled to it.
Upsampling can be good, but never of course reaches the primary resolution value.
Hell, what do I know? I'm still perfectly happy with my hi-def tv; I never jumped on the 3D or 4k bandwagons and don't feel like I missed a thing. Hell, I end up watching most of my films on my computer screen anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they really think that the buyer of a malignant ad will be "V.Putin"? No, of course they will (as they do today) put them behind meaningless, disposable, untraceable front organizations. So that's pointless.
And "who they're targeted against"? Aren't most political ad buys today "issue ads" where no candidate is named but a side is promoted?
Finally, John McCain can hardly be called an element of bipartisan politics; he's been pissy since he felt pushed aside from "his turn" by Bush II, to say nothing of his visceral hatred of Trump (who is a RINO anyway)...
How would VR trips be cheaper than a normal field trip, when a single VR headset is 2-3x the price (to a district) of renting a school bus?
...except these same paranoid people cheerfully carry around 24/7 a portable high-resolution audio and video recording device that we've all known can be activated remotely, have all their most personal and intimate data on it, as well as a GPS tracker AND PAY FOR THE BANDWIDTH THEMSELVES. /people
I say "I'm not sure global warming is real" and get modded -4, Troll.
^this comment like the above, ends up at 0 or 1. Yay, slashdot.
And the the previous poster: "Listen, asshole: the RUSSIAN ASSHOLES have been 'fucking around in our country and elections since 1917. Maybe you can figure out why it started then by yourself?
And if I'd known what frothing histrionics it would send people like you into, I'd cheerfully have voted for him, yes.
The audacity of Apple giving some minimum-wage tech schlub the title of "Genius" says *everything* about Apple, its branding, and the customers it serves.
Amusingly, they probably appreciate Ms Clinton's campaign giving theirs far greater reach and staying power in the media dialogue. Ha ha...irony.
...none of them had an agenda to support Trump.
One might almost believe that narrative was...fake news?
The Guardian article mentions that basically their efforts were to show division, not particularly meddle in the election. Their funding supported mainly Texas independence (ludicrous), gun rights, and racial issues, particularly black lives matter protests. This is pretty much what Russian Intel has done for years; the history of kgb funding for anti American, labor, and leftist movements in Europe and the USA has been well documented historically.
The notion that they put $80k into this just suggests how little they expected of it.
Sorry, that's a beautiful comment generally, but no matter how artfully and confidently delivered, bullshit is bullshit.
1) The Atlantic isn't boiling, safe to say.
2) "...if the cycle continues to expand in years it is a direct result of rapid climate change..." You simply assert this as fact, as if people won't notice the "pulled from one's ass" smell?
3) "...he extended duration of the last cycle cause the Pacific blob, a patch of warmer water much further north in the Pacific, something never seen before...." because we've only paid this detailed attention to weather for perhaps 150 years, only had satellites watching generally for 50, and only had satellites that could see this sort of information for what, 20? 30? "Never seen before" loses a lot of its power when you point out that "never" is only about 30 years.
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Ice core data shows previous spikes in both CO2 and temp *very* comparable both in magnitude and frequency, several times in the last million years. Please feel free to share your theories on how a) such systemic and durable CO2/temp spikes happened 130, 225, 275, 410, and 610 kyears ago before there were SUVs or even Republicans. (Although, honestly, I'm going to guess most Paleofauna was Republican. It just makes sense.) Heck, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... suggests this has been happening more or less the last 2.5 million years.
5) "As a direct result of these rapid changes we can expect a much more violent climate." Nope - another one of those ass-umptions. In fact, to use hurricanes as an example, the last decades have been some of the *quietest* in the modern record because hurricanes require energy AND a lack of high level winds - it's unclear if warming may actually enhance these winds, breaking up more hurricanes than usual. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/#1cbd7067f4de)
6) "...nothing we can do about it accept try to reduce the use of fossil fuels to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2.." I was wondering when you'd make the begged anthropogenic connection. Almost as guaranteed as you blaming this somehow on Trump. Wait for it....
7) "...sudden atmospheric imbalance of gases..." That sounds ominous. Then again, we're talking about 3.75% (the manmade bit) of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2. 15 parts per million. Oh no.
8) "...short sighted greedy assholes..." Darn them! I wish they'd wear silly hats or some way we could identify them.
9) "...next phase of Trumpification ...Make America Great Again is the biggest lie..." ahh, there it is. It's almost a sexual release when it finally arrives.
You started quite cogent (but still wrong) and ended up in a pretty standard virtue-signalling froth.
No, I don't take you seriously.
...why the FUCK would you even link to CNET? What the hell, is this HuffPost now?
The only links that should be present are GOOGLE MAPS BLOG: https://www.blog.google/produc... and the gmaps link itself (which the OP did link).
Oh and if you're wondering?
This was taken a couple of days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/minne...
OK, so now lackluster fall colors are the fault of global warming?
Funny, driving the last couple of weeks through MN, and I thought the colors were particularly vibrant this year. In fact, I've commented aloud that it's like being in a Bob Ross painting.
Add 'dull colors' to the list: http://www.whatreallyhappened....
The idea that one warm autumn is anything unusual is nuts.
"the fundamental assertion is that expensive software costs less than free software"
You claim this as imbecility.
I'd say it's an obvious statement of fact that anyone can understand: free doesn't necessarily mean "free".
Sure, the CODE is free.
What if installers/maintainers cost 50% more, and it requires 30% more maintenance? What if everyone using it takes 50% longer to accomplish what they're doing? What if simply distributing it requires training time for everyone in your organization that otherwise they wouldn't need?
I have no dog in this fight. I couldn't give a flying crap if Munich runs Linux, MS software, OS/2, or iOS to run their city. I don't know if Linux ran well or shitty, or if MS has bought the city administrators all hookers and blow to get the contract. No idea.
What I do know is that simply demanding that "free is always cheaper than not-free" is likely bullshit, and the louder and angrier someone insists that's so, the more likely I'm going to suspect they're trying to sell me something themselves.
"...his stature and accomplishments should be taken into account before people start dissing his opinions...."
Sure. Then again, if the Nobel Committee wants their winners to carry some de facto credibility from their award, they need to give the prize to more people like him, and fewer prizes based on virtue signalling.
"Computer keyboards will be phased out over the next 20 years..."
Who is saying this, on what authority?
I don't think people object to the concept of unemployment assistance. As you say, a lot of people lean on it to get through a tough patch.
What people generally object to is using it as a regular crutch and/or a lifestyle.
"We've found you SO insubordinate that we have to FIRE you from the company. But yes, we trust you Mr NetAdmin, to take your company laptop home with you."
Jesus. He's in trouble, but I hope for humanity's sake THEY didn't reproduce.
...that the OP mentioned "fake news" and "Russian Interference" in the same sentence inveighing against bad information spread widely.
"destroy all life on a continent"
Histrionics.
Remember, this is a GRAD student's info.
The ashfall of previous eruptions, while major and terrible, suggest such an eruption wouldn't be exterminatory, not even for the western US.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc...
Um, in my world I'd have just said "when you get to my house, push the keys through the mail slot".
No internet required.
Total cost of equipment maybe $10 for the mail slot in the door.
Seriously man, why overcomplicate things?
Why not just link what stack links to? The ACTUAL explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Quote:
Blade Runner (a movie) is a science fiction novella by Beat Generation author William S. Burroughs, first published in 1979.[1]
The novella began as a story treatment for a proposed film adaptation of Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner. (Some sources describe Burroughs' work as a closet screenplay.) A later edition published in the 1980s changed the formatting of the title to Blade Runner, a movie.
Burroughs' treatment is set in early 21st century and involves mutated viruses and "a medical-care apocalypse". The term "blade runner" referred to a smuggler of medical supplies, e.g. scalpels.
No film was ever made; the title Blade Runner was later bought for use in Ridley Scott's 1982 science fiction film, Blade Runner.[1] The plot of that film was based on Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and not the Nourse, Burroughs source material, although the film does incorporate the term "blade runner" into dialogue.
I'd agree with that.
Unfortunately for the solar-zealots Solar is getting something like 400x the subsidies per MW/h as coal...you really ok with dropping them and letting the market decide?
I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. One could say it's seminal to my movie-going experience: I'm 50, so from the audience that snuck into theaters to see it (I was 15-16 when it released).
I found BR2049 merely ok. I think there was in fact a good film somewhere in there, but it takes a lot of work to sift it from the dross.
I'm not buying the OP's point that the 'tired old story' was what dragged this down. All of the things that really hurt this film were ALL directorial choices.
- pacing: Villaneuve is suffering George Lucas disease. He needs more people to stop telling him how brilliant he is and give him solid criticism. At 2:40 this thing could have easily been an HOUR shorter. Long, drawn out, frankly dull establishing shots were self-indulgent and just felt like you're watching someone show you the 100th slide of their family vacation. It's interesting at first, but ultimately you just DON'T CARE ANYMORE. It's not THAT cool.
- focus: part of the above, partly its own thing. Don't get me wrong, I've long since gotten past my Ridley Scott fandom (Prometheus? Fuck you Ridley I want my $ back), but a terrific choice he made in the first film is to spend relatively little focus on the tech of the era. Sure it's there, and he can't help but notice, but he's not obsessing over the flying cars, etc like BR2049 did.
- product placement: I don't give a shit if Peugot dumped a pile of $ at you. Stop shoving brands in my face. Better that they'd stuck with the Pan Ams and ATARI of the first film.
- the deafening soundscape: Jesus Christ my ears were nearly bleeding after that. Fire your sound man, immediately.
- pointless plots and characters: Why was Leto even IN this film? As a foil, he did literally nothing except kick a dog (a dog we didn't care at all about, btw, so pointless).
- enormous plot holes - the murder in the police station went rather more smoothly than I'd imagine it would; if replicants reproducing is such a earth-shattering thing why build them with ovaries, or even functional uteruses? I have to imagine engineering OUT the 'rag once a month' would (have been) advantageous to the utility of replicants generally?
- the flying car dogfight? Jesus. I don't know where they were going with Deckard (or why?), but if you're fleeing pursuit, here's hint: turn off the 100k-watt cabin lights that make you a lighthouse? Guns on police flying cars?
The Economist nails it https://www.economist.com/blog... - I'd have used the word ponderous, but bombastic works just as well.
It would be pretty bad, but not "fucked".
https://geneticliteracyproject...
1) 60% of US crops grow fine without bees. "...Wheat, corn and rice are wind-pollinated. Lettuce, beans and tomatoes are self-pollinated. The 12 crops that worldwide furnish nearly 90 percent of the worldâ(TM)s food â" rice, wheat, maize (corn), sorghums, millets, rye, and barley, and potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassavas or maniocs, bananas and coconuts â" are wind pollinated, self-pollinated or are propagated asexually or develop without the need for fertilization (parthenocarpically)...."
2) of that remaining 40%, not all of the plants require insect pollination; some are merely benefited by it in better yields but can do without.
3) LOTS of insects pollinate that remaining 40%.
https://www.thoughtco.com/inse...
Learn to understand scales. What you're talking about is basically noise.
Did you even look at my link? Note the scales changing on the x-axis. Your data DOES appear.
Yours from Skeptical Science (a good site, btw) show scales of decades and one with centuries. I'm talking 1000+ year scales. Look at the 20ky-200ky span. Pulse...decline....pulse....decline...pulse....decline.... What do YOU think would come next in that series?
"...the benefit depends on viewing the screen from an ideal distance..."
Actually, that only matters if FIRST the content is either delivered at that resolution or upsampled to it.
Upsampling can be good, but never of course reaches the primary resolution value.
Hell, what do I know? I'm still perfectly happy with my hi-def tv; I never jumped on the 3D or 4k bandwagons and don't feel like I missed a thing. Hell, I end up watching most of my films on my computer screen anyway.