This is about a collusion between state government agencies to shut someone up who is attempting to alert the public to one or more agencies' shady practices at the expense of said public.
Or... it's about someone being careless in calling themselves an engineer, and the state fining that person because that's illegal in Oregon? Does it have to be a conspiracy?
This is a very common moth and can be found in most parts of the world where you would find such holding ponds. So the answer to your question is: apparently nothing. Unless you start spreading honey on your plastic linings this shouldn't be an issue.
The binding isn't the problem, that's a tiny portion of the cost of the book. I would have loved some fancy binding on my $200 textbooks, at least then they would have held together a little better. I remember one, for $225, softcover and printed in black and white, with streaks - the printing wasn't even very good.
That was before I stopped buying textbooks entirely. After that I decided I'd just try to make due without them, which... was probably not the best choice for my education.
While the CA Republicans have more in common with the endangered spotted owl than 1/10th of the US population. Republican fundraisers still swing by to pick up checks from Silicon Valley companies..
In response to:
There are about as many Republicans in CA as there are pink unicorns with gold plated horns.
Hm. I guess maybe you intended that as corroboration for the grandparents' comment about people turning into Republicans when they get lots of money, rather than agreement that Republicans are rare in California? Okay, point made.
I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time
It kind of does, sometimes, this was the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine. Before that though, there were few limits on what the media could say and there's been at least one American war fought essentially purely for the sake of selling newspapers (the Spanish American War).
I think you were going somewhere else with that comment, but I don't see it. The Fairness Doctrine is the only thing I can think of which fits that description.
Oh, bless your heart. Someone told you that Republicans were scarce in California, and you believed them... Why? 31% of voters in California are Republicans, compared to 45% Democrats. In fact, according to the Public Policy Institute of California more Californians identify as Conservative than Liberal: 36% vs 35%. It's just that, thanks to the magic of the Electoral College, their opinions and votes don't matter in presidential elections. Bribes, of course, are always welcome from anyone though. Er, "campaign contributions."
At the same time, while, on the whole, it may be cheaper to do it yourself, if you don't use your juicer a lot then it may be more expensive in the long run when you have to buy many different ingredients that don't last that long.
No, the point is that it's $400 cheaper, with exactly the same results, if you don't buy the juicer at all. Also: No, you could use a standard juicer and throw away half your ingredients (probably much more than that), and it would still be cheaper than $5/eight ounces.
There's a convenience cost, and for the people willing to pay it that second point is less important, but the first point is the mark of a scam - this product is unnecessary.
It seems like a pretty standard bit, attempting to add some context. Journalists often add some extra stuff in - ideally this is there to bring the uninformed up to speed, sometimes it's about adding detail to allow the reader to more closely relate to the subject (how often do you an article mention a person's age and occupation in contexts where those things are meaningless?), sometimes it's just there to fill some words.
It's possible that this journalist was taking advantage of the opportunity to take a shot at Trump, but even if they weren't there would have been something there about FISA scrutiny.
No, this is not what we're talking about. This is not how the AI works. I don't know where that idea came from, but a lot of people in this thread seem to think that this is just some kind of robotic actuary. It is not. RTFA
I hate to say this on Slashdot, but you need to read the article. You're way off-base on how this works, the AI isn't making decisions based on a simplified and pre-sanitized set of data. There's no need to make an AI for that, we already have people and AIs who can do that. The AI makes associations between words and bits of information, based on data which it pulls from how those words and facts are used by the public. So when women, vaginas, Betty, Veronica, and makeup are all associated together by the AI, you can't just pull out the bit about women and treat the others as independent.
You're missing what the parent is saying - you can't just tell the AI to ignore race/gender, it's baked into how we talk and act. Telling the AI to ignore gender, for example, would require finding every last thing which correlates with gender (basically impossible) and telling the AI to ignore those (which would mean cutting out large portions of what it needs to function).
E.g.: Your AI makes a statement, "Women be like this, while men be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People with vaginas be like this, while people with penises be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People named Betty or Veronica be like this, while people named Archie or Jughead be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People who wear makeup be like this, while people who don't be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
Etc. You could do this forever and you still wouldn't catch them all, they'd just get more subtle.
The courts would have granted him no victory at all, the problem is that what the airline did here is perfectly legal. The recourses available to him were the same as with any bad law - write to his congressman, write to a newspaper, sign / start a petition, vote, hire a lobbyist, whine about it on social media, etc. These methods don't get you as much personal attention as making a public spectacle, it might not be as obvious that you, personally, have made a difference, but there are many many examples of legislation effecting change and one of these things is almost always the impetuous for that legislation. Usually the lobbyist thing, but sometimes the others.
those first three people decided not to question their selection to be #REACCOMODATED whilst the last man felt his opportunity cost was much more valuable than waiting an entire day
No, all of them felt the same way about leaving. Only one of them wanted to fight about it. I'm a little conflicted on this issue - the guy who we're all supporting here was clearly in the right, and many people would describe what he did as "sticking up for himself against an abusive company," but he did so at the expense of... how many other people on that plane?
It was a terribly self-centered act, and he's going to be richly rewarded for it. Meanwhile, the other three people who were just as inconvenienced as he was are going to get squat. I fully support standing up against this kind of abusive behavior, but not in this way.
I'm sad for writers that have negotiated bad contracts. A strike will not further their cause.
You seem to be confused regarding who we're talking about here. The Writers Guild of America represents writers for all of TV / Film / Streaming / you name it - if it plays on a screen and it's not a video game, these are the people who write it. These are not people who are clinging to a doomed ship: all of that content which you are watching on Netflix, which you are implying is the future of the industry, that is them too.
In fact, they seem to be agreeing with you that this is the future of the industry, or at least that it represents a large portion of that future, and are attempting to insure their place in it. I don't know if a strike will further their cause or not, strikes only take place after negotiations have broken down, but I certainly support the idea of good writing in the streaming future and I like the idea of writers who are able to support themselves in this way.
... Huh. I always thought that jingoism was referring to a particular type of journalism - one which relied on jingles, basically simplistic little soundbites, rather than anything more in-depth or comprehensive. (i.e.: "Remember the Maine.") Now I don't know what to call that.
Do you have some mod following you around or something? Every one of your posts in this thread has been modded +1. That's not weird, mods take sides all the time, but this has happened almost as soon as you've posted for every post. Deep in a thread for a story from yesterday that's off the front page. Like this mod is just sitting around waiting for you to say something.
I don't want to imply that there's some funny business going on, on not implying that. It's just... That's weird.
What I saw was someone who said, "With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing." and I called him on his bullshit. Then he went on to say that, "You don't get that rich and keep it by being incompetent in business." elevating Trump's business prowess to the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
I say again that your logic is faulty, though I will longer call you a hypocrite. You do indeed seem to subscribe to the gospel of wealth.
The parent cited weak evidence that Trump didn't know what he was doing, you called him on that weak evidence and then cited weak evidence of your own and claimed that he did know what he was doing.
Unless you think that being rich is evidence of competence or virtue? I had pegged you as a hypocrite, but I hadn't considered that you could be one of those gospel of wealth people.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about a collusion between state government agencies to shut someone up who is attempting to alert the public to one or more agencies' shady practices at the expense of said public.
Or... it's about someone being careless in calling themselves an engineer, and the state fining that person because that's illegal in Oregon? Does it have to be a conspiracy?
This is a very common moth and can be found in most parts of the world where you would find such holding ponds. So the answer to your question is: apparently nothing. Unless you start spreading honey on your plastic linings this shouldn't be an issue.
Unfortunately, it's way more than four and (per Lisa Simpson) they vote at a disproportionate rate.
The binding isn't the problem, that's a tiny portion of the cost of the book. I would have loved some fancy binding on my $200 textbooks, at least then they would have held together a little better. I remember one, for $225, softcover and printed in black and white, with streaks - the printing wasn't even very good.
That was before I stopped buying textbooks entirely. After that I decided I'd just try to make due without them, which... was probably not the best choice for my education.
While the CA Republicans have more in common with the endangered spotted owl than 1/10th of the US population. Republican fundraisers still swing by to pick up checks from Silicon Valley companies..
In response to:
There are about as many Republicans in CA as there are pink unicorns with gold plated horns.
Hm. I guess maybe you intended that as corroboration for the grandparents' comment about people turning into Republicans when they get lots of money, rather than agreement that Republicans are rare in California? Okay, point made.
I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time
It kind of does, sometimes, this was the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine. Before that though, there were few limits on what the media could say and there's been at least one American war fought essentially purely for the sake of selling newspapers (the Spanish American War).
I think you were going somewhere else with that comment, but I don't see it. The Fairness Doctrine is the only thing I can think of which fits that description.
Oh, bless your heart. Someone told you that Republicans were scarce in California, and you believed them... Why? 31% of voters in California are Republicans, compared to 45% Democrats. In fact, according to the Public Policy Institute of California more Californians identify as Conservative than Liberal: 36% vs 35%. It's just that, thanks to the magic of the Electoral College, their opinions and votes don't matter in presidential elections. Bribes, of course, are always welcome from anyone though. Er, "campaign contributions."
At the same time, while, on the whole, it may be cheaper to do it yourself, if you don't use your juicer a lot then it may be more expensive in the long run when you have to buy many different ingredients that don't last that long.
No, the point is that it's $400 cheaper, with exactly the same results, if you don't buy the juicer at all. Also: No, you could use a standard juicer and throw away half your ingredients (probably much more than that), and it would still be cheaper than $5/eight ounces.
There's a convenience cost, and for the people willing to pay it that second point is less important, but the first point is the mark of a scam - this product is unnecessary.
It seems like a pretty standard bit, attempting to add some context. Journalists often add some extra stuff in - ideally this is there to bring the uninformed up to speed, sometimes it's about adding detail to allow the reader to more closely relate to the subject (how often do you an article mention a person's age and occupation in contexts where those things are meaningless?), sometimes it's just there to fill some words.
It's possible that this journalist was taking advantage of the opportunity to take a shot at Trump, but even if they weren't there would have been something there about FISA scrutiny.
Thank you unspecified researchers, always making wonderful new discoveries to benefit all of us.
No, of course it's not serious. The Onion is a joke newspaper, so it's: The Onion, humorously.
No, this is not what we're talking about. This is not how the AI works. I don't know where that idea came from, but a lot of people in this thread seem to think that this is just some kind of robotic actuary. It is not. RTFA
I hate to say this on Slashdot, but you need to read the article. You're way off-base on how this works, the AI isn't making decisions based on a simplified and pre-sanitized set of data. There's no need to make an AI for that, we already have people and AIs who can do that. The AI makes associations between words and bits of information, based on data which it pulls from how those words and facts are used by the public. So when women, vaginas, Betty, Veronica, and makeup are all associated together by the AI, you can't just pull out the bit about women and treat the others as independent.
You're missing what the parent is saying - you can't just tell the AI to ignore race/gender, it's baked into how we talk and act. Telling the AI to ignore gender, for example, would require finding every last thing which correlates with gender (basically impossible) and telling the AI to ignore those (which would mean cutting out large portions of what it needs to function).
E.g.: Your AI makes a statement, "Women be like this, while men be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People with vaginas be like this, while people with penises be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People named Betty or Veronica be like this, while people named Archie or Jughead be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
So your AI rethinks it and comes up with another statement, "People who wear makeup be like this, while people who don't be like this." And you tell your AI, "No AI, bad."
Etc. You could do this forever and you still wouldn't catch them all, they'd just get more subtle.
The courts would have granted him no victory at all, the problem is that what the airline did here is perfectly legal. The recourses available to him were the same as with any bad law - write to his congressman, write to a newspaper, sign / start a petition, vote, hire a lobbyist, whine about it on social media, etc. These methods don't get you as much personal attention as making a public spectacle, it might not be as obvious that you, personally, have made a difference, but there are many many examples of legislation effecting change and one of these things is almost always the impetuous for that legislation. Usually the lobbyist thing, but sometimes the others.
those first three people decided not to question their selection to be #REACCOMODATED whilst the last man felt his opportunity cost was much more valuable than waiting an entire day
No, all of them felt the same way about leaving. Only one of them wanted to fight about it. I'm a little conflicted on this issue - the guy who we're all supporting here was clearly in the right, and many people would describe what he did as "sticking up for himself against an abusive company," but he did so at the expense of... how many other people on that plane?
It was a terribly self-centered act, and he's going to be richly rewarded for it. Meanwhile, the other three people who were just as inconvenienced as he was are going to get squat. I fully support standing up against this kind of abusive behavior, but not in this way.
I love your last line there: "The first thing you should do is become independently wealthy."
I can't deny that it's good advice.
I'm sad for writers that have negotiated bad contracts. A strike will not further their cause.
You seem to be confused regarding who we're talking about here. The Writers Guild of America represents writers for all of TV / Film / Streaming / you name it - if it plays on a screen and it's not a video game, these are the people who write it. These are not people who are clinging to a doomed ship: all of that content which you are watching on Netflix, which you are implying is the future of the industry, that is them too.
In fact, they seem to be agreeing with you that this is the future of the industry, or at least that it represents a large portion of that future, and are attempting to insure their place in it. I don't know if a strike will further their cause or not, strikes only take place after negotiations have broken down, but I certainly support the idea of good writing in the streaming future and I like the idea of writers who are able to support themselves in this way.
... Huh. I always thought that jingoism was referring to a particular type of journalism - one which relied on jingles, basically simplistic little soundbites, rather than anything more in-depth or comprehensive. (i.e.: "Remember the Maine.") Now I don't know what to call that.
All right, thanks. Good to know I wasn't imagining something.
Do you have some mod following you around or something? Every one of your posts in this thread has been modded +1. That's not weird, mods take sides all the time, but this has happened almost as soon as you've posted for every post. Deep in a thread for a story from yesterday that's off the front page. Like this mod is just sitting around waiting for you to say something.
I don't want to imply that there's some funny business going on, on not implying that. It's just... That's weird.
A believe system in which wealth indicates virtue.
What I saw was someone who said, "With a income of at least 100M that we know of, and possible billions elsewhere, I believe we can clearly say he knows what he is doing." and I called him on his bullshit. Then he went on to say that, "You don't get that rich and keep it by being incompetent in business." elevating Trump's business prowess to the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
I say again that your logic is faulty, though I will longer call you a hypocrite. You do indeed seem to subscribe to the gospel of wealth.
The parent cited weak evidence that Trump didn't know what he was doing, you called him on that weak evidence and then cited weak evidence of your own and claimed that he did know what he was doing.
Unless you think that being rich is evidence of competence or virtue? I had pegged you as a hypocrite, but I hadn't considered that you could be one of those gospel of wealth people.
No, I said nothing about your sources. I said that your logic was faulty.