Really? You never keep any data you read in your brain? If that's true there are bigger issues at stake. I don't have 24/7 access to google and wouldn't want it, so maybe I'm the anomaly. I just don't see this "study" as worth the time it took to perform. Even if it is accurate, who the hell cares?
I get having a "professional" social media profile (a la LinkedIn) but no way in hell is a personal profile going to be up for discussion in any job interview I have. My private life is my life, not my employer's or prospective employer's. If they can't understand that I don't want to work for them anyway.
I don't give a shit, in my personal life if people "expect a facebook". I don't even have all my real-life friends associated with my one social media profile, I'm sure as hell not handing it out to every person I meet at some bar or party.
How is it not your own knowledge after you've internalized it? Just because you searched for it on google or some other search engine as opposed to a book doesn't make it somehow not information you've retained. This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
Please find me an 11" laptop (full laptop, not a pad of some kind) for anywhere near the price of an 11" macbook air that has the same specs. When I bought my Apple I was desperately searching for something as an alternative and never found one. The next closest competition was a Sony Viaio something and it was about $800 more expensive. If it had been the same price I would have bought the Sony.
For those of us who actually travel a lot, lighter is better. I can run about 3 hours doing blender or gimp or garage band (recording audio books) on my 11" macbook air battery. No it's not 8 hours but who really expects to work that long on battery power? Even on planes you can get power in your seat these days. Does it suck having to carry an adapter? Absolutely. I'm not a fan of getting rid of even more connectors, but lighter is better in my opinion. The real question is whether the adapter just eats all the weight savings of no ports. At least with USB C you can just adapt usb devices with a cable not a real adapter.
With all due respect to his brilliance, Hawking should stick to his own subject of expertise. Without aggression we would die, pure and simple. Aggression has been a significant factor (arguably) in making us the dominant species on the planet.
I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated?
Ideally yes though I realize that is probably unrealistic.
I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
Most people are vaccinated already when they are children so the vast majority of the cost is already accounted for. The rest of it is probably pretty much the easiest cost/benefit analysis ever. The cost of the vaccines and program administration would almost certainly be hugely outweighed by the reduced health care costs. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to do this either with public or private money. Most medical insurance already covers getting vaccines. (vaccines are generally very cheap)
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Since the point is that they should be vaccinated the answer to your question seems self evident. Furthermore those numbers do not add up to 100% and the percent of loonies who don't get vaccinated is in the single digits.
No they don't add up to 100% but it's a huge portion of the working populace and you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to give people choice and then limit ~60% of the job market from them.
Regarding cost, I was talking about the cost of the oversight. Verification that people do, in fact, have the appropriate vaccinations etc. You can't ensure this without some significant cost associated with the tracking and oversight.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.
That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.
Your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and mine are different. the few times I've moderated something overrated it has ALWAYS been because it was at least a majority, if not entirely, incorrect. I agree, there are very few reasons to mod down but incorrect information is definitely one of them.
No one has said it was acceptable. What I said (and what I believe the Pope meant) is that it's not a surprise that when you go out of your way to offend someone, they react badly.
There are any number of instances where you could say so & so should be "turned into a glass crater" because of some real or imagined slight or offense. Obviously no one is condoning the out-of-proportion response to the Charlie Ebdo but let's not act like this is some sort of shock either. It's happened before and the editors of Charlie Ebdo chose to continue the action. I'm not saying I disagree with their choice (I think we should be able to say & print whatever we think as long as it doesn't put people in physical harm - like yelling fire in a crowded theater as the classic example) but let's not try to imply they had no part of this and the action was completely unexpected.
The only real question is whether or not it is reasonable to think that their actions did directly put people in harm. I think not, but clearly someone disagrees with me.
What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.
Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.
Please read the rest of Genesis. Abraham lived to be 175 supposedly. This came after Genesis 6:3. Hell, Isaac (son of Abraham) was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah (Isaac's mother) was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Terah (Abraham's father) was 205 years old (Genesis 11:27–32).
What world do you work in where so much goes wrong so often that you've had 15+ occurrences where you had to "check my old email" to keep from being in a bad situation? Wherever it is, I'll stay the hell away.
I keep all my old emails, for the same reason, but I've used them once or twice in nearly 20 years.
I trust google with my data even less than I trust the government. It's why I no longer use any of their services. This article is not for anyone with a functional brain, it's for the masses that believe what they're told to believe. I'd also suspect this wasn't something Schmidt said without some "guidance" or "suggestions" from some of his high powered friends in the government.
Some people simply can't afford to pay for their bandwidth usage themselves, though. Think of the communities that used to use BBSes and now have forum sites where they post pictures, videos, and massive amounts of text. The owners, presumably hobbyists (originally), just want to share information, not foot the bill for everyone else who has a similar interest.
Advertising has a place. Personally, I can ignore most non-intrusive ads and they really only bother me if the move around following my cursor, or blocking the real content, which is more a problem with site or particular ad design than advertisements in general. Other people have a lower tolerance.
Make no mistake, though, what you're suggesting is just elitism trying to keep "poor" people from using the internet for its intended purpose, sharing of information. I'm sure that's not your intent but that's the reality of what you just indicated in your post. "If you can't afford it without advertisements, you shouldn't use the internet" is basically what you just said.
Feel free to post links to these videos. I'd be interested in seeing how these studies defined "girly" things and "boyish" things for newborns. I suspect that will be more telling than the babies' responses. If building are boyish and teddy bears are girlish, I'm going to call bullshit on the whole damn thing.
Role models will be the deciding factor. Having a mother who programs and a father who programs, especially if you include her in your computer time, will be a major help.
Then again, some people just don't like it. My oldest, 19 now, is incredibly good at math (though she doesn't like it) and science but her focus is on the "softer" side of things. She wants to work with animals, zoology type stuff, so not a complete lack of science but not the hard focus engineering puts on it. At the same time she's grown up fixing cars and building things right alongside of me. She enjoys that but it's not her passion.
In the end, the best thing you can do is expose your kids to a wide option of possibilities and teach them to make their own decisions and that if they don't like something after a few years they can change their mind again and try a different path.
That wasn't the case with our ferret. She would run all over the place and end up right back at her pen when it was time to sleep (which was most of the time).
Hell house cats are about as tame as they come, right? But cats turn feral after a certain amount of time without a fixed home. Hell I had a cat, since birth, that always ran off at night in Korea but would walk down the street, roof top to roof top, as I walked home from work then sit in the front door waiting for me to come in the house. When we moved to the US, he got one look at "wilderness" and disappeared, to be seen only twice more over the next year. He had clearly turned feral but, from the look of him, was no worse off.
Anecdotal? Sure, but I think we make a lot of assumptions about things that we believe without having any scientific basis to back up our beliefs. I think you'd find, if you dumped a bunch of ferrets in the wild, plenty will find their way home, others will survive just fine in the wild and make new homes, and still others will not survive. Pretty much the way it is in "the real world" already. No matter how much we try, we're not taking the "wild" completely out of any domesticated species as a whole. There will always be individuals that retain their instincts and natural capabilities. Enough to keep the species alive? That probably depends upon the species.
This is important "news for nerds" because of the fact that this "peer reviewed" article had a such an egregious error in it that should have been easily spotted if, in fact, the paper was ever actually reviewed.
What does this imply for OSS that is "peer reviewed by millions" as we are wont to point out?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You never keep any data you read in your brain? If that's true there are bigger issues at stake. I don't have 24/7 access to google and wouldn't want it, so maybe I'm the anomaly. I just don't see this "study" as worth the time it took to perform. Even if it is accurate, who the hell cares?
I get having a "professional" social media profile (a la LinkedIn) but no way in hell is a personal profile going to be up for discussion in any job interview I have. My private life is my life, not my employer's or prospective employer's. If they can't understand that I don't want to work for them anyway.
I don't give a shit, in my personal life if people "expect a facebook". I don't even have all my real-life friends associated with my one social media profile, I'm sure as hell not handing it out to every person I meet at some bar or party.
How is it not your own knowledge after you've internalized it? Just because you searched for it on google or some other search engine as opposed to a book doesn't make it somehow not information you've retained. This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
The Yoga is fairly close and is a decent computer. My daughter has one but it wasn't available when I bought my macbook air.
Please find me an 11" laptop (full laptop, not a pad of some kind) for anywhere near the price of an 11" macbook air that has the same specs. When I bought my Apple I was desperately searching for something as an alternative and never found one. The next closest competition was a Sony Viaio something and it was about $800 more expensive. If it had been the same price I would have bought the Sony.
For those of us who actually travel a lot, lighter is better. I can run about 3 hours doing blender or gimp or garage band (recording audio books) on my 11" macbook air battery. No it's not 8 hours but who really expects to work that long on battery power? Even on planes you can get power in your seat these days. Does it suck having to carry an adapter? Absolutely. I'm not a fan of getting rid of even more connectors, but lighter is better in my opinion. The real question is whether the adapter just eats all the weight savings of no ports. At least with USB C you can just adapt usb devices with a cable not a real adapter.
With all due respect to his brilliance, Hawking should stick to his own subject of expertise. Without aggression we would die, pure and simple. Aggression has been a significant factor (arguably) in making us the dominant species on the planet.
I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.
Bah, they don't need that data. They just have to look at posting history on slashdot. Of course [he] is.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated?
Ideally yes though I realize that is probably unrealistic.
I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
Most people are vaccinated already when they are children so the vast majority of the cost is already accounted for. The rest of it is probably pretty much the easiest cost/benefit analysis ever. The cost of the vaccines and program administration would almost certainly be hugely outweighed by the reduced health care costs. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to do this either with public or private money. Most medical insurance already covers getting vaccines. (vaccines are generally very cheap)
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Since the point is that they should be vaccinated the answer to your question seems self evident. Furthermore those numbers do not add up to 100% and the percent of loonies who don't get vaccinated is in the single digits.
No they don't add up to 100% but it's a huge portion of the working populace and you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to give people choice and then limit ~60% of the job market from them.
Regarding cost, I was talking about the cost of the oversight. Verification that people do, in fact, have the appropriate vaccinations etc. You can't ensure this without some significant cost associated with the tracking and oversight.
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.
That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.
F that. Give me the quietest car possible. I'd much rather listen to my music or my companions speaking to me than the damn engine!
Your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and mine are different. the few times I've moderated something overrated it has ALWAYS been because it was at least a majority, if not entirely, incorrect. I agree, there are very few reasons to mod down but incorrect information is definitely one of them.
No one has said it was acceptable. What I said (and what I believe the Pope meant) is that it's not a surprise that when you go out of your way to offend someone, they react badly.
There are any number of instances where you could say so & so should be "turned into a glass crater" because of some real or imagined slight or offense. Obviously no one is condoning the out-of-proportion response to the Charlie Ebdo but let's not act like this is some sort of shock either. It's happened before and the editors of Charlie Ebdo chose to continue the action. I'm not saying I disagree with their choice (I think we should be able to say & print whatever we think as long as it doesn't put people in physical harm - like yelling fire in a crowded theater as the classic example) but let's not try to imply they had no part of this and the action was completely unexpected.
The only real question is whether or not it is reasonable to think that their actions did directly put people in harm. I think not, but clearly someone disagrees with me.
What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.
Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.
Please read the rest of Genesis. Abraham lived to be 175 supposedly. This came after Genesis 6:3. Hell, Isaac (son of Abraham) was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah (Isaac's mother) was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Terah (Abraham's father) was 205 years old (Genesis 11:27–32).
That reference is inconsistent, to say the least.
What world do you work in where so much goes wrong so often that you've had 15+ occurrences where you had to "check my old email" to keep from being in a bad situation? Wherever it is, I'll stay the hell away.
I keep all my old emails, for the same reason, but I've used them once or twice in nearly 20 years.
Seriously?
I trust google with my data even less than I trust the government. It's why I no longer use any of their services. This article is not for anyone with a functional brain, it's for the masses that believe what they're told to believe. I'd also suspect this wasn't something Schmidt said without some "guidance" or "suggestions" from some of his high powered friends in the government.
Some people simply can't afford to pay for their bandwidth usage themselves, though. Think of the communities that used to use BBSes and now have forum sites where they post pictures, videos, and massive amounts of text. The owners, presumably hobbyists (originally), just want to share information, not foot the bill for everyone else who has a similar interest.
Advertising has a place. Personally, I can ignore most non-intrusive ads and they really only bother me if the move around following my cursor, or blocking the real content, which is more a problem with site or particular ad design than advertisements in general. Other people have a lower tolerance.
Make no mistake, though, what you're suggesting is just elitism trying to keep "poor" people from using the internet for its intended purpose, sharing of information. I'm sure that's not your intent but that's the reality of what you just indicated in your post. "If you can't afford it without advertisements, you shouldn't use the internet" is basically what you just said.
Feel free to post links to these videos. I'd be interested in seeing how these studies defined "girly" things and "boyish" things for newborns. I suspect that will be more telling than the babies' responses. If building are boyish and teddy bears are girlish, I'm going to call bullshit on the whole damn thing.
Role models will be the deciding factor. Having a mother who programs and a father who programs, especially if you include her in your computer time, will be a major help.
Then again, some people just don't like it. My oldest, 19 now, is incredibly good at math (though she doesn't like it) and science but her focus is on the "softer" side of things. She wants to work with animals, zoology type stuff, so not a complete lack of science but not the hard focus engineering puts on it. At the same time she's grown up fixing cars and building things right alongside of me. She enjoys that but it's not her passion.
In the end, the best thing you can do is expose your kids to a wide option of possibilities and teach them to make their own decisions and that if they don't like something after a few years they can change their mind again and try a different path.
That wasn't the case with our ferret. She would run all over the place and end up right back at her pen when it was time to sleep (which was most of the time).
Hell house cats are about as tame as they come, right? But cats turn feral after a certain amount of time without a fixed home. Hell I had a cat, since birth, that always ran off at night in Korea but would walk down the street, roof top to roof top, as I walked home from work then sit in the front door waiting for me to come in the house. When we moved to the US, he got one look at "wilderness" and disappeared, to be seen only twice more over the next year. He had clearly turned feral but, from the look of him, was no worse off.
Anecdotal? Sure, but I think we make a lot of assumptions about things that we believe without having any scientific basis to back up our beliefs. I think you'd find, if you dumped a bunch of ferrets in the wild, plenty will find their way home, others will survive just fine in the wild and make new homes, and still others will not survive. Pretty much the way it is in "the real world" already. No matter how much we try, we're not taking the "wild" completely out of any domesticated species as a whole. There will always be individuals that retain their instincts and natural capabilities. Enough to keep the species alive? That probably depends upon the species.
You think making it illegal without a warrant will actually stop it? Keep dreaming.
This is important "news for nerds" because of the fact that this "peer reviewed" article had a such an egregious error in it that should have been easily spotted if, in fact, the paper was ever actually reviewed.
What does this imply for OSS that is "peer reviewed by millions" as we are wont to point out?