Is that the "nail of yesterday" that's desperately begging us for a strategic relationship, emplacing US military equipment, and offering naval bases to the USN?
Quick question: would we take seriously pronouncements on physics, black holes, and the nature of reality coming from, say, Kissinger? No, that would be idiotic. The man probably knows everything about the subtle interplay of diplomacy, but nothing about physics. The very idea of him commenting on particle physics is ludicrous.
Yet, at the same time, we don't immediately start laughing when someone like Stephen Hawking - who knows everything about physics, black holes, and the nature of reality but likely NOTHING MORE THAN THE GENERAL CITIZEN about diplomacy, history, and the interplay of international negotiations - starts commenting on international affairs, to say nothing of politics in a country not even his own?
Mr Hawking is entitled to his own opinion, of course. But the idea that "we should listen to him, he's smart" is pretty stupid.
...immediately identifies themselves as someone I need not take seriously.
Nobody rational GIVES A SHIT about connecting their coffeemaker to the internet. Anyone reasonably skeptical will have nothing to do with the idea of connecting their front door locks to the internet.
Short version: it's the latest stupid internet fad, interesting only to the circle-jerk of people promoting such things.
So she's suggesting that a discipline that requires an (obsessive) focus on procedure, logic, math, and detail *might* not benefit from being addressed as the "flavor of the month" educational issue and magic-bulleted by an "hour of code" every week using what amounts to dumbed-down simplistic tools taught by general-ed instructors who aren't really familiar with what they're doing anyway?
Maybe we should just leave it as a profession to people that actually enjoy it and choose to do it, instead of trying to stampede kids (particularly ones with vaginas!) into it with t-shirts, media attention, and shiny prizes?
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that the kid attracted to a profession because there's balloons and cake at a few school events, is going to be pretty fucking disappointed when they realize that much of the job involves sitting for HOURS AND HOURS, alone, and thinking really hard about stuff.
The summary is that if we're talking about benefiting humanity, there are plenty of things we can do with our time, money, political will that will SUBSTANTIALLY improve life now and in the future (several have compounding benefits over generations) rather than trying to infinitesimally change something we only incompletely understand in the first place.
...to identify people I hope I never have to talk to.
From TFA: "The whitewashing snapchat filters are making me internalise Eurocentric beauty standards(I've avoided doing this until now)&it needs to STOP"
The question isn't IF your data is for sale, it's whether Linkedin is selling it directly or whether a hacker's taken it and is selling it for cheaper.
So really, Linkedin's bitch is actually that they're probably being undercut in the marketplace.
I grew up in the US upper midwest. If anyone in the late 19th century or the early 20th century had suggested that women weren't equal partners or didn't work as hard or harder than the men in their families, EVERYONE (men & women) would have laughed at you.
Let me be clear, I think pushing ads into the OS is pretty nearly the definition of dystopian and frankly obscene.
It is easy to block however: http://bgr.com/2015/11/20/wind... As CNET helpfully explained this week, you only need to follow a few steps to turn off ads:
Open the âSettingsâ(TM) menu Click on âPersonalizationâ(TM) Click on âStartâ(TM) at the bottom of the left-hand column Find a heading labeled âoeOccasionally show suggestions in Startâ and turn the switch to the âOffâ(TM) position
BTW: take the opportunity while you're in settings to turn off ALL THE OTHER SHIT THAT'S ON BY DEFAULT in WIN10.
Now, finally perhaps the SJWs will focus their ardor where it belongs: on improving the lot in life of the 2 billion women treated ACTUALLY LIKE SHIT, instead of trying to fix the (dubious) "hardships" women face in the developed world.
I'm not really talking about the babies, it's not their fault; I'm talking about their procreators stupid enough to leave button batteries, etc where little children can get them (or leaving them unattended with electronics long enough to get the cover off and batteries out) and then leaving them unobserved long enough to eat the damn things.
No slam on curiosity; slamming on parents incapable of some basic parental functions.
Is there anything that someone can't find a reason to throw 9+-digit sums of taxpayer money at?
Seriously, I'm asking: when your country is $19 trillion in debt and spending 2/3 more than you take in, is it really a great idea to spend money on every shiny new thing you see?
Well I'm sure glad you caught our purpose-built and deliberately-disguised but also entirely-accidental surveillance can! What a mistake, I'm sure that was the only one, and we're the only police department to have made such a silly, silly mistake!
Does Doom even make a good tech demo anymore? I mean, can't pretty much every card do "dark, tight, enclosed spaces, with high-contrast shadows" in their sleep?
Really, the cutting edge in video presentation has to be high-texture details with complex curves in great numbers, massive numbers of moving figures and dynamic lighting in outdoor environments, as well as sightlines - it's always a question of how far you're rendering high details.
Promising gameplay "like the old Dooms" - I *loved* Doom, Doom2 with a passion but since Doom3 and Rage, I can't think of much I'm LESS interested in? I'm pretty thoroughly done with "oh look the lights happened to go out and a wall happened to drop behind me and there happened to be a closet Piranha-like aggressive undead attacking me in the pitch black and I only have 3 shotgun shells left". ZZZZ.
"Every gasoline car on the road has a subsidy, and the right way to address that is with a carbon tax."
No Elon, not at all.
The RIGHT way to address it would be to ACTUALLY REMOVE the subsidy, in all forms. Tax credits. Free or reduced-price land use. Exoneration of cleanup costs/brownfield mitigation. All that stuff needs to go away.
I'm an ardent "right winger" by the standards of/., but I wouldn't for a moment think of removing social welfare spending before we FIRST take away all forms of corporate welfare.
Let's first start by stopping the largesse, before we get into the complicated subtleties of taxing the commons.
"Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,"
Why stop at embryos?
Think how much they could learn if they left them for 500, 600 weeks ? I mean hell, go to 2000 weeks and then terminate. Think how much you'd learn!
As a 49 year old, I can pretty much vouch there's little value in studying past that point.
If people can't see the moral qualms here, I'd only offer you a couple of current-world points from which to extrapolate: - puppy mills - the fact that China *already* treats actual humans like replaceable meaningless bio-cogs
Do you still need to go through commercial services to get text of legal decisions?
Here's another: I have a handgun, and would like to practice without going and dropping $50 at a range. I live in a rural county (where it's perfectly legal to shoot guns on your own property as long as you're outside a town limit), but in a town. I am 90% sure that shooting in the public river bottoms WCA is legal, so I called my county sheriff's office to confirm. I was passed to a "Sergeant (something or other)" and left a message. No reply. Called again a couple of weeks later, no reply. Called a 3rd time, probably months later, no reply. Each time transferred to the same Sergeant. I now believe that's a dead end voicemail for "shit we don't want to deal with".
I know it has to be true in a practical sense, but how can "ignorance of the law" logically not be an excuse when: - new laws & precedent are written faster than any single human could be expected to read them all - law officers won't even answer a direct question about "is this legal or no?"
Not sure how many times it has to be said: our ability to detect planets is RUDIMENTARY at best, limited to large, heavy, and/or close-in planets that happen to be precisely ecliptically aligned with ourselves.
To take any data based on what we have today and extrapolate "to the rest of the universe" is just silly.
Venus and Mars are arguably in the 'habitable' zone in this system, and I don't see us busting down any doors exploring those like crazy. Sure, we've done some good work on Mars but budgetwise it's not a big priority...
...which of 3 possibilities this article represents: 1) an attempt to spread fud to advance some agenda 2) an attempt to "strawman" fud by conflating actual real things with uncontrollables (like an asteroid strike) to advance some agenda Or 3) just some bloviating "experts" repeating what we mostly already knew to garner attention
The odds that it's simply a well intentioned genuine warning are too small to realistically consider.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the "nail of yesterday" that's desperately begging us for a strategic relationship, emplacing US military equipment, and offering naval bases to the USN?
Quick question: would we take seriously pronouncements on physics, black holes, and the nature of reality coming from, say, Kissinger? No, that would be idiotic. The man probably knows everything about the subtle interplay of diplomacy, but nothing about physics. The very idea of him commenting on particle physics is ludicrous.
Yet, at the same time, we don't immediately start laughing when someone like Stephen Hawking - who knows everything about physics, black holes, and the nature of reality but likely NOTHING MORE THAN THE GENERAL CITIZEN about diplomacy, history, and the interplay of international negotiations - starts commenting on international affairs, to say nothing of politics in a country not even his own?
Mr Hawking is entitled to his own opinion, of course. But the idea that "we should listen to him, he's smart" is pretty stupid.
...immediately identifies themselves as someone I need not take seriously.
Nobody rational GIVES A SHIT about connecting their coffeemaker to the internet.
Anyone reasonably skeptical will have nothing to do with the idea of connecting their front door locks to the internet.
Short version: it's the latest stupid internet fad, interesting only to the circle-jerk of people promoting such things.
So she's suggesting that a discipline that requires an (obsessive) focus on procedure, logic, math, and detail *might* not benefit from being addressed as the "flavor of the month" educational issue and magic-bulleted by an "hour of code" every week using what amounts to dumbed-down simplistic tools taught by general-ed instructors who aren't really familiar with what they're doing anyway?
Maybe we should just leave it as a profession to people that actually enjoy it and choose to do it, instead of trying to stampede kids (particularly ones with vaginas!) into it with t-shirts, media attention, and shiny prizes?
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that the kid attracted to a profession because there's balloons and cake at a few school events, is going to be pretty fucking disappointed when they realize that much of the job involves sitting for HOURS AND HOURS, alone, and thinking really hard about stuff.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjor...
Simple answer?
Finite resources and priorities.
The summary is that if we're talking about benefiting humanity, there are plenty of things we can do with our time, money, political will that will SUBSTANTIALLY improve life now and in the future (several have compounding benefits over generations) rather than trying to infinitesimally change something we only incompletely understand in the first place.
...to identify people I hope I never have to talk to.
From TFA:
"The whitewashing snapchat filters are making me internalise Eurocentric beauty standards(I've avoided doing this until now)&it needs to STOP"
Please Lord, let me never meet this person.
It's Linkedin.
The question isn't IF your data is for sale, it's whether Linkedin is selling it directly or whether a hacker's taken it and is selling it for cheaper.
So really, Linkedin's bitch is actually that they're probably being undercut in the marketplace.
...(sigh).
Why are the people from MN that have any sort of fame such nutballs?
(looks at self)
We're not ALL nutballs up here, are we?
I grew up in the US upper midwest.
If anyone in the late 19th century or the early 20th century had suggested that women weren't equal partners or didn't work as hard or harder than the men in their families, EVERYONE (men & women) would have laughed at you.
Let me be clear, I think pushing ads into the OS is pretty nearly the definition of dystopian and frankly obscene.
It is easy to block however:
http://bgr.com/2015/11/20/wind...
As CNET helpfully explained this week, you only need to follow a few steps to turn off ads:
Open the âSettingsâ(TM) menu
Click on âPersonalizationâ(TM)
Click on âStartâ(TM) at the bottom of the left-hand column
Find a heading labeled âoeOccasionally show suggestions in Startâ and turn the switch to the âOffâ(TM) position
BTW: take the opportunity while you're in settings to turn off ALL THE OTHER SHIT THAT'S ON BY DEFAULT in WIN10.
Now, finally perhaps the SJWs will focus their ardor where it belongs: on improving the lot in life of the 2 billion women treated ACTUALLY LIKE SHIT, instead of trying to fix the (dubious) "hardships" women face in the developed world.
I'm not really talking about the babies, it's not their fault; I'm talking about their procreators stupid enough to leave button batteries, etc where little children can get them (or leaving them unattended with electronics long enough to get the cover off and batteries out) and then leaving them unobserved long enough to eat the damn things.
No slam on curiosity; slamming on parents incapable of some basic parental functions.
...I'd say we're long past the point where we need to start STOP saving the babies that eat batteries. Maybe even make them MORE toxic?
With 7 billion people, we can start losing the stupidest.
"God rewards the diligent."
Is that Chinese for "Arbeit macht frei"?
Is there anything that someone can't find a reason to throw 9+-digit sums of taxpayer money at?
Seriously, I'm asking: when your country is $19 trillion in debt and spending 2/3 more than you take in, is it really a great idea to spend money on every shiny new thing you see?
Well I'm sure glad you caught our purpose-built and deliberately-disguised but also entirely-accidental surveillance can! What a mistake, I'm sure that was the only one, and we're the only police department to have made such a silly, silly mistake!
Would you feel the same if Google biased its results to make Trump look good?
Does Doom even make a good tech demo anymore?
I mean, can't pretty much every card do "dark, tight, enclosed spaces, with high-contrast shadows" in their sleep?
Really, the cutting edge in video presentation has to be high-texture details with complex curves in great numbers, massive numbers of moving figures and dynamic lighting in outdoor environments, as well as sightlines - it's always a question of how far you're rendering high details.
Promising gameplay "like the old Dooms" - I *loved* Doom, Doom2 with a passion but since Doom3 and Rage, I can't think of much I'm LESS interested in? I'm pretty thoroughly done with "oh look the lights happened to go out and a wall happened to drop behind me and there happened to be a closet Piranha-like aggressive undead attacking me in the pitch black and I only have 3 shotgun shells left". ZZZZ.
"Every gasoline car on the road has a subsidy, and the right way to address that is with a carbon tax."
No Elon, not at all.
The RIGHT way to address it would be to ACTUALLY REMOVE the subsidy, in all forms.
Tax credits.
Free or reduced-price land use.
Exoneration of cleanup costs/brownfield mitigation.
All that stuff needs to go away.
I'm an ardent "right winger" by the standards of /., but I wouldn't for a moment think of removing social welfare spending before we FIRST take away all forms of corporate welfare.
Let's first start by stopping the largesse, before we get into the complicated subtleties of taxing the commons.
"Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,"
Why stop at embryos?
Think how much they could learn if they left them for 500, 600 weeks ? I mean hell, go to 2000 weeks and then terminate. Think how much you'd learn!
As a 49 year old, I can pretty much vouch there's little value in studying past that point.
If people can't see the moral qualms here, I'd only offer you a couple of current-world points from which to extrapolate:
- puppy mills
- the fact that China *already* treats actual humans like replaceable meaningless bio-cogs
....but seriously, who gives a shit who conceptualized it?
I have absolutely no idea if he is who he claimed to be or not. Nor do I even faintly care. I'm curious why other people care so much?
Do you still need to go through commercial services to get text of legal decisions?
Here's another: I have a handgun, and would like to practice without going and dropping $50 at a range. I live in a rural county (where it's perfectly legal to shoot guns on your own property as long as you're outside a town limit), but in a town. I am 90% sure that shooting in the public river bottoms WCA is legal, so I called my county sheriff's office to confirm. I was passed to a "Sergeant (something or other)" and left a message. No reply. Called again a couple of weeks later, no reply. Called a 3rd time, probably months later, no reply. Each time transferred to the same Sergeant. I now believe that's a dead end voicemail for "shit we don't want to deal with".
I know it has to be true in a practical sense, but how can "ignorance of the law" logically not be an excuse when:
- new laws & precedent are written faster than any single human could be expected to read them all
- law officers won't even answer a direct question about "is this legal or no?"
Not sure how many times it has to be said: our ability to detect planets is RUDIMENTARY at best, limited to large, heavy, and/or close-in planets that happen to be precisely ecliptically aligned with ourselves.
To take any data based on what we have today and extrapolate "to the rest of the universe" is just silly.
Let's not get TOO carried away.
Venus and Mars are arguably in the 'habitable' zone in this system, and I don't see us busting down any doors exploring those like crazy. Sure, we've done some good work on Mars but budgetwise it's not a big priority...
...which of 3 possibilities this article represents:
1) an attempt to spread fud to advance some agenda
2) an attempt to "strawman" fud by conflating actual real things with uncontrollables (like an asteroid strike) to advance some agenda
Or
3) just some bloviating "experts" repeating what we mostly already knew to garner attention
The odds that it's simply a well intentioned genuine warning are too small to realistically consider.