Whereas I'm not 100% against flying cars. I'm 100% against Uber being the ones to deliver them.
A few flying cars in the sky might not be a major problem. When you get hundreds of them in a single city, that's when it starts getting a mess. Hundreds of one ton combustible devices flying over my head at the same time... Needs a lot of thought on safety.
It is very possible he was a deist or a Unitarian (19th century definition not modern definition). He certainly wasn't what most Christians today would describe as a Christian. For example it is believed that he didn't believe in Jesus as being God, he didn't believe in the trinity.
A lot of the educated class in the US didn't believe in Christianity the way modern Christians do. Most of the founders weren't traditional Christians, George Washington certainly wasn't; he specifically requested not to have a Christian ceremony at his funeral.
Why didn't AIDS become as big in the hetero community.
Really? Do you not know anything about the gay scene? I'll give you a clue, the amount of fucking is in the region of 10-100 times greater than in hetero land. That means contagions have a 10-100 times greater chance of spreading.
That doesn't tell the full story though. Yes, they have higher success rates at hooking up (straight men would too if women were as easy).
On top of that though, there was lack of condom usage several decades ago. Men can't get other men pregnant. There is also the nature of the sex- anal transmission is much higher than vaginal transmission. It's a lot harder to spread AIDs vaginally.
Another big factor in why it didn't spread as much in the heterosexual community: it's much harder for a woman to pass the disease to someone else than it is for a man. A man with the disease is much more likely to infect his partner than a woman with the disease is.
It's more complicated than JUST a number of partners thing (Although that obviously amplifies the problem).
The majority of sexually active people in America have HPV- and what's more, it can be transmitted even with a condom in use.
Most people don't show symptoms, at least not early on, but it could be responsible for all sorts of cancers. I'm glad HPV vaccines are now in use for the kids... too late for our generation.
Makes sense. Most people aspire to be better off. (yes, Anonymous Coward, I know, you're the exception)
There have been studies done that suggest that people tend to "dress up". What I mean by that is, if someone moves into an area where dress codes are more formal, or more affluent looking, people in those areas tend to adapt to that dress code.
If someone moves to an area where people dress more slovenly than they are accustomed to, they tend to not change their clothing- they would rather stand out as the well-dressed individual.
Obviously over the last several decades there has been an overall move to less formal clothing, but we tend to emulate those who look more well off than us rather than the other way around. It may be subconscious and Anonymous Coward will deny it, but that's how it is.
I am so sick of hearing about "Artificial Intelligence". There's nothing intelligent about it.
This reminds me of a certain Sherlock Holmes passage. Sherlock Holmes deduces all sorts about an individual by having a quick glance at them (as normal). The man is astonished and asks how he knew- when Sherlock explains the man replies that he thought at first he had done something clever, but now realises it wasn't.
Sherlock Holmes's quick eye took in my occupation, and he shook his head with a smile as he noticed my questioning glances. "Beyond the obvious facts that he has at some time done manual labor, that he takes snuff, that he is a Freemason, that he has been in China, and that he has done a considerable amount of writing lately, I can deduce nothing else."
Mr. Jabez Wilson started up in his chair, with his forefinger upon the paper, but his eyes upon my companion.
How, in the name of good fortune, did you know all that, Mr. Holmes?" he asked. "How did you know, for example, that I did manual labor? It's as true as gospel, for I began as a ship's carpenter."
"Your hands, my dear sir. Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left. You have worked with it and the muscles are more developed."
"Well, the snuff, then, and the Freemasonry?"
"I won't insult your intelligence by telling you how I read that, especially as, rather against the strict rules of your order, you use an arc and compass breastpin."
"Ah, of course, I forgot that. But the writing?"
"What else can be indicated by that right cuff so very shiny for five inches, and the left one with the smooth patch near the elbow where you rest it upon the desk."
"Well, but China?"
"The fish which you have tattooed immediately above your wrist could only have been done in China. I have made a small study of tattoo marks, and have even contributed to the literature of the subject. That trick of staining the fishes' scales of a delicate pink is quite peculiar to China. When, in addition, I see a Chinese coin hanging from your watch chain, the matter becomes even more simple."
Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed heavily. "Well, I never!" said he. "I thought at first that you had done something clever, but I see that there was nothing in it after all."
Your claim that Artificial Intelligence doesn't use "Intelligence" is much like Mr. Wilson claiming what Sherlock did wasn't "clever".
Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.
My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?
Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.
This gets real complicated real fast.
Personally, I think a letter to the editor campaign, or using media is OK. This is how campaigns SHOULD be run, by equal citizens have equal ability to campaign.
I am against the spending on advertisements to promote specific candidates. The quickly shifts the onus back on who can have the supporters who cumulatively have the most money.
Now, if the ads were based on issues without promoting individual candidates, that would be OK in my mind (impossible to enforce otherwise). Like for example, Trump supporters could post an ad for a wall to keep people of different colors to them out. Hillary supporters could post an ad in favor of "free" college-tuition.
Who gets elected should never be about whose supporters can directly raise the most money.
Only 2 get to be on all 50 state ballots because only 2 got their shit together to do it.
The problem third parties have is that their most popular issues are regularly co-opted by the major parties, stripping off their support. There is nothing to be done about this, except run a better candidate—and good luck on that one.
Third parties also seem to only run for president, and that is a dumb way to engage people since few people want to enlist for certain defeat. I seldom see third party candidates advertise in my local races (or even nonpartisan races—to the extent you can tell what party they are from). Some have a chance at winning, or they would if they were really running as anything but a placeholder.
You don't see them running for other offices because they don't have the fundraising capability.
Corporations throw money at the two main candidates because they're the only ones who can win. They're the only one's who can win because corporations throw money at them.
Some states have specific rules about only the "top two popular parties" getting state funding for primaries, and other perks. The whole thing is rigged against any third party getting established.
Full nuclear war will make all of earth uninhabitable by more complex lifeforms, certainly not any humans, even sheltered ones.
That's not true. No state would "blanket-bomb" the earth. Statistics like "Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 5x over" isn't accurate. Some weapons would be intercepted, strategic areas would receive multiple hits, You think Russia is going to bother bombing North Dakota? Why waste a multi-million $ weapon on a rural nothing? Some weapons will be sabotaged. The first weapons fired would be to take out the enemies nuclear capabilities- many weapons would be disarmed.
Most importantly, nuclear war would be over long before all the weapons could be launched.
A nuclear war would be horrifying but it wouldn't wipe out all life on earth, that belief comes from a misunderstanding of how the weapons would be deployed. Hundreds of millions of people could theoretically be killed, but life would go on. Even a nuclear winter wouldn't be the end, life would go on in a more impoverished state. There would be more cancer from people living near bombed zones.
A look at Chernobyl shows that even in areas with massive radiation, some complex lifeforms live.
We have 4 candidates, but how the establishment is set up in the US, only 2 are likely to win.
Only 2 get state funded primaries in most states. Only 2 get to be on the debates. Only 2 get to be on all 50 ballots. Only 2 get insane-money funding to spend on advertising. Because a majority of 270 EC votes are needed, if you vote for any other than the main 2, you risk giving the vote to the House of Representatives (which means only 2 get a chance).
I could go on, and, on. Yes, there are more than 2 candidates; however the establishment has rigged it so you don't really get more than 2 realistic choices.
I usually vote 3rd party in protest (knowing it's not achieving anything) - this year I am voting for one of the two, but only because one of the candidates could very well end democracy.
If you have any intelligence vote for the obvious lesser of the two evils. People still recommending voting for Trump just makes me think there's some big joke and at some point, it'll all turn out to be a giant hoax. Maybe it'll be a TV programme about how you can make the world think 47% of Americans are racist, sexist morons.
I don't personally know a single Trump voter who isn't a racist or a sexist. I'm not saying there aren't some out there, surely there must be, but there's a reason why most of these scandals haven't hurt him more than about 5% points. It's because most of his supporters are proud of his transgressions. If Trump came out in favor of reintroducing segregation, he wouldn't lose many supporters. It shows what a bad state our country is in that such a man has such a large following. Racism is still a huge problem in our country.
Besides 2015 of course... and now 2016 has been hotter month on month than any other year, and if it continues will be hotter than 2015. We had a short pause and now it's really ratcheting up again.
They considered better quality beer to big a risk to transport with the unproven technology. Crashing and spilling Budweiser wasn't considered much of a risk.
This is 2016, I would have thought the very fact our telecommunications companies (and everyone else who has the ability to) are spying on us should be common knowledge, not news.
Here's a quick flow chart that applies to all big companies and organisations that you associate with.
Can they spy on you ------No-------> They're buying data about you from someone who can. .|.. .|.. Yes. .|.. \./. They are spying on you.
Good candidate don't run for president, and the few that do don't get very far. By very nature of being decent, they don't attract corporate or lobbyist money.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, yes. Humanity was at least partially responsible for a lot of the megafauna of the wildlife going extinct.
We wiped out lots of large animals already and now we're working on the smaller ones.
Whereas I'm not 100% against flying cars. I'm 100% against Uber being the ones to deliver them.
A few flying cars in the sky might not be a major problem. When you get hundreds of them in a single city, that's when it starts getting a mess. Hundreds of one ton combustible devices flying over my head at the same time... Needs a lot of thought on safety.
Wouldn't that be a "Carrier" jet?
It might be simpler to get them flying autonomously than it is to get them driving autonomously.
Lincoln was an atheist, so if by chance there is a heaven, Lincoln isn't in it.
So, you purport to be sitting on the definitive rules for who gets in and who doesn't, do you?
That's a tad presumptuous, I'd say.
As an agnostic, I make no such claim. Most Christians today (in the US at least) would claim you have to accept Jesus as savior to get into heaven.
It is very possible he was a deist or a Unitarian (19th century definition not modern definition). He certainly wasn't what most Christians today would describe as a Christian. For example it is believed that he didn't believe in Jesus as being God, he didn't believe in the trinity.
A lot of the educated class in the US didn't believe in Christianity the way modern Christians do. Most of the founders weren't traditional Christians, George Washington certainly wasn't; he specifically requested not to have a Christian ceremony at his funeral.
Why didn't AIDS become as big in the hetero community.
Really? Do you not know anything about the gay scene? I'll give you a clue, the amount of fucking is in the region of 10-100 times greater than in hetero land. That means contagions have a 10-100 times greater chance of spreading.
That doesn't tell the full story though. Yes, they have higher success rates at hooking up (straight men would too if women were as easy).
On top of that though, there was lack of condom usage several decades ago. Men can't get other men pregnant. There is also the nature of the sex- anal transmission is much higher than vaginal transmission. It's a lot harder to spread AIDs vaginally.
Another big factor in why it didn't spread as much in the heterosexual community: it's much harder for a woman to pass the disease to someone else than it is for a man. A man with the disease is much more likely to infect his partner than a woman with the disease is.
It's more complicated than JUST a number of partners thing (Although that obviously amplifies the problem).
Your momma.
Yo momma thinks 250 is on the low side.
Like you, I am proud of NBC. Good for them, I'm glad a major network is promoting empathy and understanding!
The majority of sexually active people in America have HPV- and what's more, it can be transmitted even with a condom in use.
Most people don't show symptoms, at least not early on, but it could be responsible for all sorts of cancers. I'm glad HPV vaccines are now in use for the kids... too late for our generation.
Lincoln was an atheist, so if by chance there is a heaven, Lincoln isn't in it.
Makes sense. Most people aspire to be better off. (yes, Anonymous Coward, I know, you're the exception)
There have been studies done that suggest that people tend to "dress up". What I mean by that is, if someone moves into an area where dress codes are more formal, or more affluent looking, people in those areas tend to adapt to that dress code.
If someone moves to an area where people dress more slovenly than they are accustomed to, they tend to not change their clothing- they would rather stand out as the well-dressed individual.
Obviously over the last several decades there has been an overall move to less formal clothing, but we tend to emulate those who look more well off than us rather than the other way around. It may be subconscious and Anonymous Coward will deny it, but that's how it is.
isMuslim() is easy. Trump will have it programmed like this:
if (isWhite() == false || isForeign())
return true;
else
return false;
I am so sick of hearing about "Artificial Intelligence". There's nothing intelligent about it.
This reminds me of a certain Sherlock Holmes passage. Sherlock Holmes deduces all sorts about an individual by having a quick glance at them (as normal). The man is astonished and asks how he knew- when Sherlock explains the man replies that he thought at first he had done something clever, but now realises it wasn't.
Sherlock Holmes's quick eye took in my occupation, and he shook his head with a smile as he noticed my questioning glances. "Beyond the obvious facts that he has at some time done manual labor, that he takes snuff, that he is a Freemason, that he has been in China, and that he has done a considerable amount of writing lately, I can deduce nothing else."
Mr. Jabez Wilson started up in his chair, with his forefinger upon the paper, but his eyes upon my companion.
How, in the name of good fortune, did you know all that, Mr. Holmes?" he asked. "How did you know, for example, that I did manual labor? It's as true as gospel, for I began as a ship's carpenter."
"Your hands, my dear sir. Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left. You have worked with it and the muscles are more developed."
"Well, the snuff, then, and the Freemasonry?"
"I won't insult your intelligence by telling you how I read that, especially as, rather against the strict rules of your order, you use an arc and compass breastpin."
"Ah, of course, I forgot that. But the writing?"
"What else can be indicated by that right cuff so very shiny for five inches, and the left one with the smooth patch near the elbow where you rest it upon the desk."
"Well, but China?"
"The fish which you have tattooed immediately above your wrist could only have been done in China. I have made a small study of tattoo marks, and have even contributed to the literature of the subject. That trick of staining the fishes' scales of a delicate pink is quite peculiar to China. When, in addition, I see a Chinese coin hanging from your watch chain, the matter becomes even more simple."
Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed heavily. "Well, I never!" said he. "I thought at first that you had done something clever, but I see that there was nothing in it after all."
Your claim that Artificial Intelligence doesn't use "Intelligence" is much like Mr. Wilson claiming what Sherlock did wasn't "clever".
Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.
My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?
Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.
This gets real complicated real fast.
Personally, I think a letter to the editor campaign, or using media is OK. This is how campaigns SHOULD be run, by equal citizens have equal ability to campaign.
I am against the spending on advertisements to promote specific candidates. The quickly shifts the onus back on who can have the supporters who cumulatively have the most money.
Now, if the ads were based on issues without promoting individual candidates, that would be OK in my mind (impossible to enforce otherwise). Like for example, Trump supporters could post an ad for a wall to keep people of different colors to them out. Hillary supporters could post an ad in favor of "free" college-tuition.
Who gets elected should never be about whose supporters can directly raise the most money.
Only 2 get to be on all 50 state ballots because only 2 got their shit together to do it.
The problem third parties have is that their most popular issues are regularly co-opted by the major parties, stripping off their support. There is nothing to be done about this, except run a better candidate—and good luck on that one.
Third parties also seem to only run for president, and that is a dumb way to engage people since few people want to enlist for certain defeat. I seldom see third party candidates advertise in my local races (or even nonpartisan races—to the extent you can tell what party they are from). Some have a chance at winning, or they would if they were really running as anything but a placeholder.
You don't see them running for other offices because they don't have the fundraising capability.
Corporations throw money at the two main candidates because they're the only ones who can win. They're the only one's who can win because corporations throw money at them.
Some states have specific rules about only the "top two popular parties" getting state funding for primaries, and other perks. The whole thing is rigged against any third party getting established.
Russia has a nuclear weapon capable of destroying Texas, the question is: why would they do us such a favour?
Full nuclear war will make all of earth uninhabitable by more complex lifeforms, certainly not any humans, even sheltered ones.
That's not true. No state would "blanket-bomb" the earth. Statistics like "Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 5x over" isn't accurate. Some weapons would be intercepted, strategic areas would receive multiple hits, You think Russia is going to bother bombing North Dakota? Why waste a multi-million $ weapon on a rural nothing? Some weapons will be sabotaged. The first weapons fired would be to take out the enemies nuclear capabilities- many weapons would be disarmed.
Most importantly, nuclear war would be over long before all the weapons could be launched.
A nuclear war would be horrifying but it wouldn't wipe out all life on earth, that belief comes from a misunderstanding of how the weapons would be deployed. Hundreds of millions of people could theoretically be killed, but life would go on. Even a nuclear winter wouldn't be the end, life would go on in a more impoverished state. There would be more cancer from people living near bombed zones.
A look at Chernobyl shows that even in areas with massive radiation, some complex lifeforms live.
We have 4 candidates, but how the establishment is set up in the US, only 2 are likely to win.
Only 2 get state funded primaries in most states. Only 2 get to be on the debates. Only 2 get to be on all 50 ballots. Only 2 get insane-money funding to spend on advertising. Because a majority of 270 EC votes are needed, if you vote for any other than the main 2, you risk giving the vote to the House of Representatives (which means only 2 get a chance).
I could go on, and, on. Yes, there are more than 2 candidates; however the establishment has rigged it so you don't really get more than 2 realistic choices.
I usually vote 3rd party in protest (knowing it's not achieving anything) - this year I am voting for one of the two, but only because one of the candidates could very well end democracy.
If you have any intelligence vote for the obvious lesser of the two evils. People still recommending voting for Trump just makes me think there's some big joke and at some point, it'll all turn out to be a giant hoax. Maybe it'll be a TV programme about how you can make the world think 47% of Americans are racist, sexist morons.
I don't personally know a single Trump voter who isn't a racist or a sexist. I'm not saying there aren't some out there, surely there must be, but there's a reason why most of these scandals haven't hurt him more than about 5% points. It's because most of his supporters are proud of his transgressions. If Trump came out in favor of reintroducing segregation, he wouldn't lose many supporters. It shows what a bad state our country is in that such a man has such a large following. Racism is still a huge problem in our country.
Besides 2015 of course... and now 2016 has been hotter month on month than any other year, and if it continues will be hotter than 2015. We had a short pause and now it's really ratcheting up again.
Let's do something nice on Slashdot for a change.
This goes against everything Slashdot stands for.
They considered better quality beer to big a risk to transport with the unproven technology. Crashing and spilling Budweiser wasn't considered much of a risk.
This is 2016, I would have thought the very fact our telecommunications companies (and everyone else who has the ability to) are spying on us should be common knowledge, not news.
Here's a quick flow chart that applies to all big companies and organisations that you associate with.
Can they spy on you ------No-------> They're buying data about you from someone who can.
.|..
.|..
.|..
Yes.
\./.
They are spying on you.
Good candidate don't run for president, and the few that do don't get very far. By very nature of being decent, they don't attract corporate or lobbyist money.