If you stop approving the building of every effing golf-course-surrounded suburb and start approving urban development, you won't need to invest in public transport. Private investors will do that for you.
(Yes, public transport is profitable when you don't force car usage. Britain's bus system, for example, is self funded with the exception - that really does prove the rule - of some rural routes.)
Everyone, regardless of whether they drive or not, would benefit from better zoning laws. Yes, I know most Americans "like" driving in the abstract. But very few like it at 7.45am or 5.15pm on a weekday. Most would like to see their cost of living go down. Most would like to see lower taxes. It's hard to see how being forced to use a very expensive mode of transportation, forced to fund long, wide, roads, forced to fund mandatory property purchases for road expansion, and forced to subsidize poor, virtually useless, transit systems in rural areas, is fiscally sane.
Until planning and zoning laws are reformed nationwide so that most people can live and support themselves in environments where a car isn't necessary, it would be completely impractical, and in many ways a violation of basic liberties - HOWEVER RIDICULOUS THAT SITUATION MIGHT BE - to prevent unqualified people from driving.
We need nationwide zoning reform. High density living should not be banned in most of the country, mandatory parking space rules need repealing and businesses should be allowed to operate close to the people they serve.
The refusal of local and state governments to allow that on a large enough scale to be practical is, unfortunately, a reason why we can't do anything about bad drivers other than punish them after the fact and hope the risk of death and/or license revocation and/or fines/jailtime is enough to ensure they care.
It happens that the shorter you are (and thus less likely to be seen by a rear view mirror), the less likely you are to have the knowledge and "commonsense" to stay away from the back of a car. The million dollar question for you: is this link because of (a) genetics or (b) something rather more obvious and mundane?
1. The mirrors have blindspots. That's why this proposal exists. Kids being backed over by cars is a common problem.
2. The "expensive new cars" are likely to be, like, $10 more expensive. How much do you think an LCD, wire, and cheap 1990s-cameraphone camera costs right now? You're seriously fucking telling me there are people out there who WILL buy a $25,000 car, but not a $25,010 car? SERIOUSLY?
Technology improves and gets cheaper over time. Sometimes it's a good thing to take advantage of it.
Sounds, from TFA, like IEX already has a working system built by building in delays into their system between making a trade order and its actual execution. The delay is still a few milliseconds, but it's enough for HFT to be pretty much dead as a concept with their clients.
Their problem is that banks are hesitant to give up what was a lucrative source of revenue and use the system, but those same banks are finding it increasingly harder to resist pressure to clean up their acts and do it.
I'm pretty sure soy formula is made using GMO soy as well. So if GMO food is causing autism I expect there would be little difference between formula fed and breastfed babies.
Soy formula is a subset of the available formulas, not the default, and is generally only used by a small percentage of mothers, usually because of potential digestion problems with regular formula. In my baby's case, for instance, we tried it because my baby was suffering from colic, but gave up on it after it became clear my daughter was (at the time) allergic to soy (that is, started developing red rashes all over her body within 24 hours of the switch.)
So I would expect, if somehow GMO soy (OK, let's be honest, there is no chance whatsoever of this given GMO soy doesn't contain anything regular soy doesn't) were to blame, in such a way that it caused something to be passed via mother's breastmilk, and ALSO caused something to be in soy formula, the numbers would still show a bias.
I've ordered replacement parts for my gas grill a few times. Generally, I plug in "11111111" (or what the manual says I need) into the Sears website, and it comes up with "SKU 12345678: Manufacturer recommended replacement for discontinued part 11111111". It's not rocket science.
I am somewhat surprised GM didn't change the part number, There are numerous reasons they could have given for replacing the part that do not involve safety (such as "easier to manufacture", etc) and certainly it makes it look worse that they didn't, even though there actually may have been entirely innocent reasons for the change.
I don't think it's very likely. Babies aren't given anything other than mother's milk or formula until 9-12 months, and after that they're introduced to more normal foods very carefully, one ingredient at a time, over the following months. The foods they do have, from chicken to sweet potato, aren't GMO (there are far fewer GM foods than people think), and their foods at early stages rarely have added sugars, be they HFCS or the real thing. They do get real milk from 12 months, but I would imagine hormone levels have decreased, rather than increased, over the last few years.
Meanwhile they're already looking for autism signs at 18 months.
Plus, looking at the population as a whole, the "organic" craze has been gathering momentum over the last decade or two - while individuals who eat non-organic foods might be exposed to more "GM" or whatever food than previously, I'd assume the core number of people exposed has decreased because a large percentage of the population are now taking advantage of an option they didn't have before. The rise of the organic food fad would seem, to me, to make it more likely that "organic" foods are causing the problem! (No, I don't believe it is, I'm just saying if you go there you're likely to find the wrong correlation...)
I'm not saying it's impossible, there may be some weird path that passes some bad protein from the mother to the baby via breast milk - but a count against that - for me and yeah I'm aware this is unscientific! - is that I find it improbable there have been no studies attempting to examine whether there's a link between baby formula and autism given the excessive controversy about the former. I'd assume that if virtually no formula fed babies ever got autism this would be a major breakthrough that would be top of any research into the underlying causes.
I, like many here, would be inclined to suggest this might be more to do with improved detection methods.
Reposted due to moderation abuse. See you in metamod.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
Are you seriously suggesting there has ever been a time in history where someone's actions have played no role in deciding whether they're qualified for a specific job?
Yes, it was absurd and evil to disqualify communists from being actors or screenwriters. Would it also have been absurd and evil to disqualify someone from being head of the CIA because of past, undisclaimed, material support for the CCCP?
Allowed HTML
URLs
http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL
Important Stuff
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.
So here is your nontroversy of the afternoon: Donald Trump is furious that Barack Obama has mentioned the possibility of a terrorist nuclear attack on Manhattan, because, as he told Fox Newsâ(TM)s Greta Van Susteren today, the President âoejust put a big target on Manhattan.â Damn you, Obama! If only you had kept Manhattan a secret, no terrorist ever would have thought to attack it, and the city would remain safe from terrorist attacks, just like it was during George W. Bushâ(TM)s blemish-free reign.
Read more at http://wonkette.com/#m4TQ3Etgd... Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
The policies that were put in place to "recover" from the Great Recession were ad-hoc, and mostly centered around austerity, having much in common with Bitcoin's "price of everything, value of nothing" mentality. Only the monetary easing appears to have had any positive effects, but given it can't be targeted, it ended up disproportionately helping those who already had money and weren't actually having problems.
In the meantime, people using Keynesian models were very successful in predicting how all these anti-Keynesian policies would pan out. That's not the same thing, of course, as saying the models would definitely have worked if, for example, there actually had been a net stimulus from our governments, but it certainly did predict what, for example, cutting 750 thousand jobs from American governments (local/state/Fed) payrolls would do.
MIners in Bitcoinworld have two roles. One is to "dig for Bitcoins", that is, solve cryptographic problems that result in the creation of new bitcoins. As you say, this role has, effectively, an expiration date (which means Bitcoin is unsustainable, FWIW, if you're vaguely left wing read Keynes for an explanation. If you're right wing, Milton Friedman's over there and he'll explain it to you too. This isn't rocket science. But that's another story.)
The other role is to facilitate transactions. Bitcoin transactions are performed by maintaining the "blockchain", the giant ledger (I'm not making this up) that records every single Bitcoin transaction ever. (Again, I'm not making this up.) Obviously if any old person could add a line to the ledger it would be fairly insecure, so instead someone who wants to give money to someone else sends a message to the miners, signed with their wallet's key, that says "I'm transferring Bitcoin $X from my wallet to $this_person's", and each miner verifies, using the blockchain, that they have Bitcoin $X, and if so adds the line to the blockchain transferring the Bitcoin, and broadcasts a message to all the other miners saying what they've done so everyone else ends up with the same blockchain.
And once enough miners have confirmed they've added the transaction, the two parties with the wallets involved say "Yay, we transferred the monies" and they're happy. At the same time, the miners involved, using some algorithm I'm currently unfamiliar with so will not bother to explain in detail but the point is it exists, take a share of the transaction they facilitated as a "transaction fee".
It's this transaction fee that's the second method of making money from mining and it's why it's expected that mining will continue after all the Bitcoins are mined, although this brings us to the story, which argues they won't because people won't be willing to pay transaction fees that are economic enough to make it worthwhile.
If it really is 30 minutes to two hours of silence - no talking, sneezing, snorting, footsteps, door knocking sighs, humming tunes, praying, singing, or breathing - then it certainly tells you something. At the very least that would strongly rule against "suicidal pilot" and "terrorist diversion" scenarios.
X.org, not Wayland. Wayland is still under development. Wayland devs must be elated that Mir has made the debate "Wayland vs Mir" rather than "Tried, trusted, works, and feature complete X.org vs Wayland."
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Given the various definitions of "stable" that might apply, I made the effort to make the definition I was using explicit in my comment - that is a currency whose value stays the same or is subject to low inflation. That would be considered "stable" by the vast majority of economists of most disciplines, lunatic eye-swivling Austrian-school excepting (of course.)
If you were under the impression we were talking about horses, sorry but that's not under discussion here, we're talking about currencies, not equine homes. If you're under the impression stable could mean "subject to massive swings of value", then go jump off a short pier. And if you're under the impression stable means "stays the same all the time" then congratulations, you've siezed a useless definition not in use by anyone serious.
So if I store my dollar bills in a jar and it gets destroyed in a fire, I can go to the FDIC and get my money restored by them? No, I can't. That's because the FDIC doesn't insure dollars
Correct, but there's no incentive for a manufacturer of glass jars to build glass jars that catch fire, and it would take a remarkable amount of incompetence to do so deliberately.
However, that's not really the issue. We're not talking about bitcoins in people's wallets being stolen - it happens, but there are always going to be times it's necessary to avoid any system. What we're talking about here are interactions that involve third parties.
In the real currency world, the major institutions you deal with are banks and variants thereof. Their job is to facilitate storing and moving money around. If they're run by crooks, and you don't know this, you're in deep shit if you trust your money to them. As a result, we have this framework we call "regulation" that involves groups like the FDIC and the Federal Reserve banking system, where everything these institutions do are monitored, and if they do truly screw up, you're (normally) covered by insurance.
In the Bitcoin world, you also have to deal with third parties. Right now, everyone has to deal with exchanges at some point, because virtually nothing non-virtual can be bought using Bitcoins (cue anecdotes about Teslas bought from Craigslist - I said virtually nothing not nothing), and exchanges are one major example of a third party required to make transactions. If Bitcoin is to take off, there's a lot of evidence to suggest too that:
- People would rather use some kind of analog to a bank than manage double-top-secret malware-stealable wallets
- People would like to take loans occasionally
- People would like to use credit cards and other similar devices like they do with normal cash.
That infrastructure exists in the real money world because of demand, not because of some conspiracy by the Illuminati-run Federal Reserve central bank aliens Kennedy-killing 777-stealing 9/11 truth is out there (etc) lizard people to steal your monies.
The equivalent, in Bitcoin world, of the FDIC does not exist. It does not exist for exchanges, online Bitcoin wallet operators, or any other third parties.
Which is why we're currently reading a story about people losing their Bitcoins to yet another operator too incompetent or sleazy to operate a reliable means to store Bitcoins. And it's why we're going to continue reading this EVERY FUCKING WEEK (as we've been doing) until Bitcoin's advocates either get their act together, or realize they can't have their cake and eat it and call the whole thing off.
The main problem with Bitcoin is the deflationary nature of it long term. But the second greatest problem is that its advocates can't deal with the consequences of lack of regulation and, indeed, refuse to either propose regulation or propose an alternative that would make it safe. Most insist, instead, on blaming the victim, on having faith that the free market will somehow filter out all the bad actors (despite no evidence the bad actors won't continue to be attracted to the currency) and on having faith that bad institutions will somehow be obvious to everyone concerned.
I even, today, continue to see the lie that "everyone" "knew" about Mt. Gox and it was never highly regarded.
The fact that they *do* have customer funds to freeze means that even if they call themselves an exchange, they're functioning as a bank.
It's almost as if people in the real world want banks, are treating the "next best thing" (Exchanges) as banks, and are finding - the very hard way - that the Bitcoin system - the mix of ideologies, get-rich-quick scammers, libertarian PHP programmers, absence of regulatory bodies, and irreversible transactions, might, just might, not be able to provide them with what they want and need.
No, it's a bug. The fact that many Bitcoin fans are too stupid to understand the need for the money supply to expand and contract according to demand doesn't change that. A currency that isn't stable (either no growth or having low, predictable, inflation) is virtually useless in the long term.
And if "Government meddling" is an issue for Bitcoin advocates, I suggest they think about how to make a non-government currency that's stable, rather than rejecting stable currencies in favor of useless ones because the currently available stable currencies are controlled by central entities.
After this two minute hate, the very same people who think they are so rational will go back to being against pipelines and nuclear power (their iCrap being powered by moonbeams and sunshine, of course). They will go back to avoiding vaccines. They will go back to destroying health insurance and then convincing themselves that it is more affordable. They will go back to believing that they can borrow their way to prosperity. They will go back to believing that rutting like animals has been good for women and families, when by every scientific measure, it hasn't.
Uh, what?
Talk about straw man. If you'd added "and then they'll put on a silver hat and start yelling at teh moon and then they'll eat a cat and then they'll walk sideways because it's faster" you wouldn't sound any less like a raving lunatic.
I'm looking forward to the new Gentoo ATM. Sure, it'll take 24 hours between you punching in the amount of money you want to withdraw, and you getting the money, but it'll give you 5-10% more cash than other ATMs...
And it's implausible that people being eaten by tigers cause death, right?
There's nothing wrong with the GP's analogy. Sleep deprivation may have been common, but it's not like every human being suffered from it. As a result, like numerous other natural factors, from the plague, the numerous historical waves of lead poisoning (ancient rome, 19th Century plumbing, 20th century car exhausts) to "being eaten by tigers", the mere fact we've survived it doesn't mean that it's harmless.
But yes, it's (probably) exerted some minor evolutionary pressure, though not the pressure you appear to think (and you're claiming the GP is "biologically illiterate"?)
This is about minor but very real brain damage. If our bodies have not found a way to adapt to childhood lead poisoning, which has a much greater affect on the brain, then it's pretty safe to assume that human beings have survived in spite of this, not finding some way to make our bodies stronger. A more plausible solution to how we've survived as a species despite numerous natural attacks on our ability to think clearly is that we've evolved, or always were able, to deal with a certain amount of poor thinking, to route around brain damage rather than fix it.
Is a slightly impaired brain going to prevent the person whose brain it is reproducing? Some would argue the opposite. Will it prevent that person from living? No, because they still function enough to perform the basic tasks required in any society to live, and because the social constructs we've evolved to want and demand provide a minimum level of support for every person. Will it make it harder for that person to bring up their offspring? No, again because they'll still function enough to perform the basic tasks required in any society to live, and because of the aforementioned social constructs.
The tigers, if anything, are more likely to have had a significant evolutionary effect, in that nobody survives being eaten by one, and so it would stand to reason that we've developed more traits related to avoiding being eaten by tigers than about repairing or preventing brain damage.
Enlightenment - an early X11 proto-DE famous for its Hollywood style UI in the late nineties that kinda died because development went into a black hole for several years, Duke Nukem style, with version 17. Ironically, considered in the 1990s to be an example of bloated style-over-substance engineering, the delay with the release of E17 resulted in it being considered a highly efficient lightweight system when it was finally released.
E19 - The next version of Enlightenment, one assumes.
Wayland - an attempt to create a "lightweight" graphics layer for Linux to use in place of X11. Extremely popular amongst X11 devs, but widely derided as unwanted, unasked for, and unsuitable as an X11 replacement (not to mention likely to end up with more problems than X11), by GNU/Linux users. Only gaining steam because some idiots at Canonical decided to create a rival project, Mir, which means suddenly the choice between X11 and Wayland has been turned into a fight between Mir and Wayland, like the GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3 thing became GNOME 3 vs Unity.
DRM - a Linux kernel subsystem that's used by various GNU/Linux userspace apps to access the graphics card. Usually applications proxy their access via X11 and OpenGL. In theory, the closer you get to DRM, the more efficient your use of the graphics card becomes, or something.
Slashdot Mirror
If you stop approving the building of every effing golf-course-surrounded suburb and start approving urban development, you won't need to invest in public transport. Private investors will do that for you.
(Yes, public transport is profitable when you don't force car usage. Britain's bus system, for example, is self funded with the exception - that really does prove the rule - of some rural routes.)
Everyone, regardless of whether they drive or not, would benefit from better zoning laws. Yes, I know most Americans "like" driving in the abstract. But very few like it at 7.45am or 5.15pm on a weekday. Most would like to see their cost of living go down. Most would like to see lower taxes. It's hard to see how being forced to use a very expensive mode of transportation, forced to fund long, wide, roads, forced to fund mandatory property purchases for road expansion, and forced to subsidize poor, virtually useless, transit systems in rural areas, is fiscally sane.
Until planning and zoning laws are reformed nationwide so that most people can live and support themselves in environments where a car isn't necessary, it would be completely impractical, and in many ways a violation of basic liberties - HOWEVER RIDICULOUS THAT SITUATION MIGHT BE - to prevent unqualified people from driving.
We need nationwide zoning reform. High density living should not be banned in most of the country, mandatory parking space rules need repealing and businesses should be allowed to operate close to the people they serve.
The refusal of local and state governments to allow that on a large enough scale to be practical is, unfortunately, a reason why we can't do anything about bad drivers other than punish them after the fact and hope the risk of death and/or license revocation and/or fines/jailtime is enough to ensure they care.
Gene pool? Seriously?
It happens that the shorter you are (and thus less likely to be seen by a rear view mirror), the less likely you are to have the knowledge and "commonsense" to stay away from the back of a car. The million dollar question for you: is this link because of (a) genetics or (b) something rather more obvious and mundane?
1. The mirrors have blindspots. That's why this proposal exists. Kids being backed over by cars is a common problem.
2. The "expensive new cars" are likely to be, like, $10 more expensive. How much do you think an LCD, wire, and cheap 1990s-cameraphone camera costs right now? You're seriously fucking telling me there are people out there who WILL buy a $25,000 car, but not a $25,010 car? SERIOUSLY?
Technology improves and gets cheaper over time. Sometimes it's a good thing to take advantage of it.
Sounds, from TFA, like IEX already has a working system built by building in delays into their system between making a trade order and its actual execution. The delay is still a few milliseconds, but it's enough for HFT to be pretty much dead as a concept with their clients.
Their problem is that banks are hesitant to give up what was a lucrative source of revenue and use the system, but those same banks are finding it increasingly harder to resist pressure to clean up their acts and do it.
Soy formula is a subset of the available formulas, not the default, and is generally only used by a small percentage of mothers, usually because of potential digestion problems with regular formula. In my baby's case, for instance, we tried it because my baby was suffering from colic, but gave up on it after it became clear my daughter was (at the time) allergic to soy (that is, started developing red rashes all over her body within 24 hours of the switch.)
So I would expect, if somehow GMO soy (OK, let's be honest, there is no chance whatsoever of this given GMO soy doesn't contain anything regular soy doesn't) were to blame, in such a way that it caused something to be passed via mother's breastmilk, and ALSO caused something to be in soy formula, the numbers would still show a bias.
I've ordered replacement parts for my gas grill a few times. Generally, I plug in "11111111" (or what the manual says I need) into the Sears website, and it comes up with "SKU 12345678: Manufacturer recommended replacement for discontinued part 11111111". It's not rocket science.
I am somewhat surprised GM didn't change the part number, There are numerous reasons they could have given for replacing the part that do not involve safety (such as "easier to manufacture", etc) and certainly it makes it look worse that they didn't, even though there actually may have been entirely innocent reasons for the change.
I don't think it's very likely. Babies aren't given anything other than mother's milk or formula until 9-12 months, and after that they're introduced to more normal foods very carefully, one ingredient at a time, over the following months. The foods they do have, from chicken to sweet potato, aren't GMO (there are far fewer GM foods than people think), and their foods at early stages rarely have added sugars, be they HFCS or the real thing. They do get real milk from 12 months, but I would imagine hormone levels have decreased, rather than increased, over the last few years.
Meanwhile they're already looking for autism signs at 18 months.
Plus, looking at the population as a whole, the "organic" craze has been gathering momentum over the last decade or two - while individuals who eat non-organic foods might be exposed to more "GM" or whatever food than previously, I'd assume the core number of people exposed has decreased because a large percentage of the population are now taking advantage of an option they didn't have before. The rise of the organic food fad would seem, to me, to make it more likely that "organic" foods are causing the problem! (No, I don't believe it is, I'm just saying if you go there you're likely to find the wrong correlation...)
I'm not saying it's impossible, there may be some weird path that passes some bad protein from the mother to the baby via breast milk - but a count against that - for me and yeah I'm aware this is unscientific! - is that I find it improbable there have been no studies attempting to examine whether there's a link between baby formula and autism given the excessive controversy about the former. I'd assume that if virtually no formula fed babies ever got autism this would be a major breakthrough that would be top of any research into the underlying causes.
I, like many here, would be inclined to suggest this might be more to do with improved detection methods.
Sorry to destroy your fantasy with TEH SCIENCE, but it sounds like the optimal configuration would be 100 women and a very well stocked sperm bank...
Reposted due to moderation abuse. See you in metamod.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
Are you seriously suggesting there has ever been a time in history where someone's actions have played no role in deciding whether they're qualified for a specific job?
Yes, it was absurd and evil to disqualify communists from being actors or screenwriters. Would it also have been absurd and evil to disqualify someone from being head of the CIA because of past, undisclaimed, material support for the CCCP?
Allowed HTML
URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help. So here is your nontroversy of the afternoon: Donald Trump is furious that Barack Obama has mentioned the possibility of a terrorist nuclear attack on Manhattan, because, as he told Fox Newsâ(TM)s Greta Van Susteren today, the President âoejust put a big target on Manhattan.â Damn you, Obama! If only you had kept Manhattan a secret, no terrorist ever would have thought to attack it, and the city would remain safe from terrorist attacks, just like it was during George W. Bushâ(TM)s blemish-free reign. Read more at http://wonkette.com/#m4TQ3Etgd... Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
This isn't about his "private beliefs", it's about his open funding for a hate campaign. The article is deliberately inflammatory, portraying this as being about a CEO's personal beliefs, but it's actually 100% about his actions.
CEOs are major figureheads, and their actions reflect on the businesses they run. You rule yourself out of qualification for certain jobs if you act in certain ways, such as actively supporting discrimination against many of the people you supposedly potentially lead.
And right now we have the usual suspects who've latched on to the fact that many people still hate gays as an excuse to bash homosexuals when they have the audacity to to stand up for themselves, who are proposing that this has something to do with this guy's personal beliefs.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing ending women's suffrage, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
If he'd donated money to a group proposing the re-institution of slavery for any black enfranchised as a consequence of the Civil War, we wouldn't be having this debate. The guy wouldn't be CEO.
But this is "OK", because he wants gays treated abusively?
No fucking way. If the Mozilla Foundation wants him to be a CTO, or a programmer, or a coffee maker, or a team leader, or a division head, or whatever, that's fine. But he's not suitable for the role of CEO. End of story. He's not qualified to lead.
The policies that were put in place to "recover" from the Great Recession were ad-hoc, and mostly centered around austerity, having much in common with Bitcoin's "price of everything, value of nothing" mentality. Only the monetary easing appears to have had any positive effects, but given it can't be targeted, it ended up disproportionately helping those who already had money and weren't actually having problems.
In the meantime, people using Keynesian models were very successful in predicting how all these anti-Keynesian policies would pan out. That's not the same thing, of course, as saying the models would definitely have worked if, for example, there actually had been a net stimulus from our governments, but it certainly did predict what, for example, cutting 750 thousand jobs from American governments (local/state/Fed) payrolls would do.
MIners in Bitcoinworld have two roles. One is to "dig for Bitcoins", that is, solve cryptographic problems that result in the creation of new bitcoins. As you say, this role has, effectively, an expiration date (which means Bitcoin is unsustainable, FWIW, if you're vaguely left wing read Keynes for an explanation. If you're right wing, Milton Friedman's over there and he'll explain it to you too. This isn't rocket science. But that's another story.)
The other role is to facilitate transactions. Bitcoin transactions are performed by maintaining the "blockchain", the giant ledger (I'm not making this up) that records every single Bitcoin transaction ever. (Again, I'm not making this up.) Obviously if any old person could add a line to the ledger it would be fairly insecure, so instead someone who wants to give money to someone else sends a message to the miners, signed with their wallet's key, that says "I'm transferring Bitcoin $X from my wallet to $this_person's", and each miner verifies, using the blockchain, that they have Bitcoin $X, and if so adds the line to the blockchain transferring the Bitcoin, and broadcasts a message to all the other miners saying what they've done so everyone else ends up with the same blockchain.
And once enough miners have confirmed they've added the transaction, the two parties with the wallets involved say "Yay, we transferred the monies" and they're happy. At the same time, the miners involved, using some algorithm I'm currently unfamiliar with so will not bother to explain in detail but the point is it exists, take a share of the transaction they facilitated as a "transaction fee".
It's this transaction fee that's the second method of making money from mining and it's why it's expected that mining will continue after all the Bitcoins are mined, although this brings us to the story, which argues they won't because people won't be willing to pay transaction fees that are economic enough to make it worthwhile.
If it really is 30 minutes to two hours of silence - no talking, sneezing, snorting, footsteps, door knocking sighs, humming tunes, praying, singing, or breathing - then it certainly tells you something. At the very least that would strongly rule against "suicidal pilot" and "terrorist diversion" scenarios.
X.org, not Wayland. Wayland is still under development. Wayland devs must be elated that Mir has made the debate "Wayland vs Mir" rather than "Tried, trusted, works, and feature complete X.org vs Wayland."
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Given the various definitions of "stable" that might apply, I made the effort to make the definition I was using explicit in my comment - that is a currency whose value stays the same or is subject to low inflation. That would be considered "stable" by the vast majority of economists of most disciplines, lunatic eye-swivling Austrian-school excepting (of course.)
If you were under the impression we were talking about horses, sorry but that's not under discussion here, we're talking about currencies, not equine homes. If you're under the impression stable could mean "subject to massive swings of value", then go jump off a short pier. And if you're under the impression stable means "stays the same all the time" then congratulations, you've siezed a useless definition not in use by anyone serious.
Correct, but there's no incentive for a manufacturer of glass jars to build glass jars that catch fire, and it would take a remarkable amount of incompetence to do so deliberately.
However, that's not really the issue. We're not talking about bitcoins in people's wallets being stolen - it happens, but there are always going to be times it's necessary to avoid any system. What we're talking about here are interactions that involve third parties.
In the real currency world, the major institutions you deal with are banks and variants thereof. Their job is to facilitate storing and moving money around. If they're run by crooks, and you don't know this, you're in deep shit if you trust your money to them. As a result, we have this framework we call "regulation" that involves groups like the FDIC and the Federal Reserve banking system, where everything these institutions do are monitored, and if they do truly screw up, you're (normally) covered by insurance.
In the Bitcoin world, you also have to deal with third parties. Right now, everyone has to deal with exchanges at some point, because virtually nothing non-virtual can be bought using Bitcoins (cue anecdotes about Teslas bought from Craigslist - I said virtually nothing not nothing), and exchanges are one major example of a third party required to make transactions. If Bitcoin is to take off, there's a lot of evidence to suggest too that:
- People would rather use some kind of analog to a bank than manage double-top-secret malware-stealable wallets
- People would like to take loans occasionally
- People would like to use credit cards and other similar devices like they do with normal cash.
That infrastructure exists in the real money world because of demand, not because of some conspiracy by the Illuminati-run Federal Reserve central bank aliens Kennedy-killing 777-stealing 9/11 truth is out there (etc) lizard people to steal your monies.
The equivalent, in Bitcoin world, of the FDIC does not exist. It does not exist for exchanges, online Bitcoin wallet operators, or any other third parties.
Which is why we're currently reading a story about people losing their Bitcoins to yet another operator too incompetent or sleazy to operate a reliable means to store Bitcoins. And it's why we're going to continue reading this EVERY FUCKING WEEK (as we've been doing) until Bitcoin's advocates either get their act together, or realize they can't have their cake and eat it and call the whole thing off.
The main problem with Bitcoin is the deflationary nature of it long term. But the second greatest problem is that its advocates can't deal with the consequences of lack of regulation and, indeed, refuse to either propose regulation or propose an alternative that would make it safe. Most insist, instead, on blaming the victim, on having faith that the free market will somehow filter out all the bad actors (despite no evidence the bad actors won't continue to be attracted to the currency) and on having faith that bad institutions will somehow be obvious to everyone concerned.
I even, today, continue to see the lie that "everyone" "knew" about Mt. Gox and it was never highly regarded.
It's almost as if people in the real world want banks, are treating the "next best thing" (Exchanges) as banks, and are finding - the very hard way - that the Bitcoin system - the mix of ideologies, get-rich-quick scammers, libertarian PHP programmers, absence of regulatory bodies, and irreversible transactions, might, just might, not be able to provide them with what they want and need.
No, it's a bug. The fact that many Bitcoin fans are too stupid to understand the need for the money supply to expand and contract according to demand doesn't change that. A currency that isn't stable (either no growth or having low, predictable, inflation) is virtually useless in the long term.
And if "Government meddling" is an issue for Bitcoin advocates, I suggest they think about how to make a non-government currency that's stable, rather than rejecting stable currencies in favor of useless ones because the currently available stable currencies are controlled by central entities.
Uh, what?
Talk about straw man. If you'd added "and then they'll put on a silver hat and start yelling at teh moon and then they'll eat a cat and then they'll walk sideways because it's faster" you wouldn't sound any less like a raving lunatic.
You're describing someone who doesn't exist.
I'm looking forward to the new Gentoo ATM. Sure, it'll take 24 hours between you punching in the amount of money you want to withdraw, and you getting the money, but it'll give you 5-10% more cash than other ATMs...
And it's implausible that people being eaten by tigers cause death, right?
There's nothing wrong with the GP's analogy. Sleep deprivation may have been common, but it's not like every human being suffered from it. As a result, like numerous other natural factors, from the plague, the numerous historical waves of lead poisoning (ancient rome, 19th Century plumbing, 20th century car exhausts) to "being eaten by tigers", the mere fact we've survived it doesn't mean that it's harmless.
But yes, it's (probably) exerted some minor evolutionary pressure, though not the pressure you appear to think (and you're claiming the GP is "biologically illiterate"?)
This is about minor but very real brain damage. If our bodies have not found a way to adapt to childhood lead poisoning, which has a much greater affect on the brain, then it's pretty safe to assume that human beings have survived in spite of this, not finding some way to make our bodies stronger. A more plausible solution to how we've survived as a species despite numerous natural attacks on our ability to think clearly is that we've evolved, or always were able, to deal with a certain amount of poor thinking, to route around brain damage rather than fix it.
Is a slightly impaired brain going to prevent the person whose brain it is reproducing? Some would argue the opposite. Will it prevent that person from living? No, because they still function enough to perform the basic tasks required in any society to live, and because the social constructs we've evolved to want and demand provide a minimum level of support for every person. Will it make it harder for that person to bring up their offspring? No, again because they'll still function enough to perform the basic tasks required in any society to live, and because of the aforementioned social constructs.
The tigers, if anything, are more likely to have had a significant evolutionary effect, in that nobody survives being eaten by one, and so it would stand to reason that we've developed more traits related to avoiding being eaten by tigers than about repairing or preventing brain damage.
Enlightenment - an early X11 proto-DE famous for its Hollywood style UI in the late nineties that kinda died because development went into a black hole for several years, Duke Nukem style, with version 17. Ironically, considered in the 1990s to be an example of bloated style-over-substance engineering, the delay with the release of E17 resulted in it being considered a highly efficient lightweight system when it was finally released.
E19 - The next version of Enlightenment, one assumes.
Wayland - an attempt to create a "lightweight" graphics layer for Linux to use in place of X11. Extremely popular amongst X11 devs, but widely derided as unwanted, unasked for, and unsuitable as an X11 replacement (not to mention likely to end up with more problems than X11), by GNU/Linux users. Only gaining steam because some idiots at Canonical decided to create a rival project, Mir, which means suddenly the choice between X11 and Wayland has been turned into a fight between Mir and Wayland, like the GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3 thing became GNOME 3 vs Unity.
DRM - a Linux kernel subsystem that's used by various GNU/Linux userspace apps to access the graphics card. Usually applications proxy their access via X11 and OpenGL. In theory, the closer you get to DRM, the more efficient your use of the graphics card becomes, or something.