Given the current economic and political climate, should we really be looking to Spain and Greece as models of government? It's not an exaggeration to say that the US is in bad shape, but there are still degrees.
The fact that it's unacceptable is what makes paying it an effective form of protest. Putting yourself into that position makes you better able to reach the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to influence. That's how civil disobeience works.
Part of using "civil disobedience" as a form of protest is paying the price. In fact, that's pretty much what makes it effective as a form of protest: it's a vital part of constructing the image you want to convey. Swartz did the deed without being prepared to pay the price. In that sense, he did indeed bring it upon himself.
Aaron Swartz did a lot of things, most of them good, some of them not so much. But the man was a fallen zealot, not a saint. It does nobody any good to put him on a pedestal.
Lefty here. It's actually not so bad. I suspect that this is part of why the traditional layout spaces them similarly to the ends of a D-pad: you righties don't seem to have any trouble using that, and for us lefties, it's a similar story with the buttons.
But I am concerned with this splaying them out over the corners of the center touch screen. It could have some advantages in cases where you're expected to alternate between different buttons, but on the whole I can't see it being all that comfortable.
It is perhaps ironic that the nations putting the most serious effort into a non-US-centric Internet have governments even less trustworthy than that of the US itself. Which is saying something, in light of the recent surveillance stuff, but it's no less true for that.
The open hardware is nice, but Intel totally blew it on the reasons why the RPi is popular: it's "powerful enough" while being very small and very cheap. Minnowboard's extra power isn't by enough to justify that kind of a price jump, and the rest falls squarely under YAGNI, therefore making no difference.
This is something of a pity. I'd like to see an RPi with more expandability, but I was thinking more along the lines of a single Thunderbolt port. You could do that without increasing the price or size by all that much, and it's an option Intel could have gone with. But instead they got the RPi market mixed up with the build-your-own-gaming-rig market, and that's just plain not going to end well.
OK, much as I believe in evolution, what you're saying here is simply not true. Evolution takes place over time scales so long that humanity as we know it has not been around for long enough to observe it directly in nature, even if the first humans had somehow innately had knowledge of the scientific method as we currently understand it (which they didn't, so the time we've been able to look is in fact even shorter). Even in the lab, while we have been able to engineer situations similar to those currently thought to drive evolution, we have not observed evolution itself: in particular, speciation still eludes us.
The other problem with your post is that you haven't really addressed the issue you're replying to, because what you've mentioned has nothing to do with falsification. You can't test the power of my tiger-repelling rock by showing that there are no tigers in the area. You have to put me in a tiger cage with the rock and watch me get eaten (or, if the tigers don't come near me, then maybe there's something to the rock after all. Or maybe not; further experiments will be needed). What you mention here is like demonstrating the power of the rock by claiming that there are no tigers in the area. The opposite is another problem that has thus far eluded biologists: how do you construct an experiment that would fail if evolution as we currently understand it were not true? That's still being worked on.
Failed experiments are not sexy. They do not get you grants, and so scientists don't like them (which is not an entirely selfish thing: even scientists have to eat). But when you're doing basic scientific research, your failed experiments are even more important than your successful ones, because they're the ones that actually allow you to eliminate possibilities. Our current obsession with successful experiments is one of ways in which contemporary scientific practice is fundamentally broken.
Make no mistake, I believe in evolution. But the mental discipline required by science is very, very high, and right now, you look like you fall short of the mark. Confidence, even very high confidence, is one thing, but there's a step beyond confidence which may well be the only thing science forbids. And it looks like you have taken it.
But if the NSA can get in, then it is only a matter of time before someone else figures out how. Whether or not I trust the NSA barely even matters, because I certainly don't trust this next entity.
This is why I prefer something the NSA can't get into: there's probably nobody else who can either. The NSA's cracking efforts hold considerable value for that reason: they can, and should, be letting us know when our machines are not secure enough. The problem arises when they fail to do this, which seems to have been the case in recent years.
Two problems, actually. One is that we are dealing, not with a fear of risk, but a phobia towards it: the terms are related, to be sure, but the latter is taken to an irrational degree. If we don't want to spend our lives in padded rooms, then we must be willing to forego the mantra of "Never Again."
But the other problem comes in when the current political fashion of empathy-based arguments comes into play. We are asked to empathize with people who have been traumatized, in the moment of their trauma. Anyone would say "Never Again" in those circumstances: that's a large part of what it means to suffer trauma, and the very definition of empathy demands it from those practicing it. But the recently-traumatized are not known for their rational decision-making abilities. There's a reason we tell people to wait a year, or even longer, before making big decisions. There's a reason we devote whole branches of psychology to studying the effects of trauma. PTSD is no longer one monolithic thing, but a whole spectrum of defined conditions.
This, I think, is where the current phobias come from: a well-meaning but sorely misguided attempt to make decisions by empathizing with people who are in no condition to make those decisions. Pathos has its limits, and we have arrived at the current state by ignoring those limits. Certainly empathy has its place when it comes to the healing process, but when the time comes to make big decisions, we need to step back and look at things more rationally, even when rational thought means accepting the status quo.
Copyright infringement is theft, plain and simple: you take without permission. That you create a copy in the process is irrelevant: you are still nothing but a common thief.
Why do we even need to have this conversation? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck it isn't a duck unless it is branded a duck?
More like IE7 and earlier. 4-6 kinda-sorta did it, except for the killer feature which basically drove most people's decisions to use it in the first place: namely, alpha transparency.
When you know that a character is going to spawn a duplicate who is an evil white guy, you do not make that character anyone other than a white guy. To do so is to invite the sort of brouhaha that serves no purpose and leaves everyone angry.
Once the Valeyard is out of the way, sure. Could have been done before now, too, with basically any incarnation other than the 12th. But this was very uniquely not the time to do that sort of thing.
The only other thing is that such a step should not be mere tokenism: they should do something interesting with the change, rather than having The Doctor not be a white guy just for the sake of having The Doctor not be a white guy. There are plenty of opportunities to do something interesting with this kind of change, going in any of hundreds of different directions. Most of the arguments I've seen for a female or minority Doctor smack of exactly this sort of tokenism -they just want The Doctor to look like them- and that's not a good reason to make creative decisions. Do something creative.
Actually, you really can cook some molecules to death. This is what the Maillard reactions are: amino acids react with reducing sugars, but they require high heat. That's a large part of what cooking is: applying heat so that these reactions can happen.
In some ways that's a digression, because Vitamin C isn't an amino acid (though some other vitamins are). But under high heat, it can (and commonly does) go through its own sorts of chemical reactions, and by the end, even though all the atoms that went into the reaction are still there, they're not configured as Vitamin C anymore.
I'm told I do decently enough at beatboxing. I don't speak the languages mentioned in the article, but my big secret has always been to reduce each sound to a pronounceable syllable. Then it's just talking in meter, even if what you're saying is nonsense.
It sounds like this is the "I'm not Obama" award, counterpart to the "I'm not Bush" award that Obama was given. I saw this coming a mile away. The Peace Prize has been a joke for years.
Certainly it's a problem that text doesn't convey as much information as voice or video, but I'm forced to wonder if that's really the problem. Ten minutes on XBox Live would be enough to convince a lot of people that voice chat, despite conveying more information than text, actually made the situation worse. Currently many people prefer video chat to either text or voice, but there's still not much evidence that it has really been helping matters. That leads me to think that whatever this fundamental disconnect is, it's not based on how much information can be gleaned.
Neither, however, does it exclude the possibility that maybe we do have to be; that some level of social activity is, on a mental level, just as vital as food is to the body.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the current economic and political climate, should we really be looking to Spain and Greece as models of government? It's not an exaggeration to say that the US is in bad shape, but there are still degrees.
The fact that it's unacceptable is what makes paying it an effective form of protest. Putting yourself into that position makes you better able to reach the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to influence. That's how civil disobeience works.
Part of using "civil disobedience" as a form of protest is paying the price. In fact, that's pretty much what makes it effective as a form of protest: it's a vital part of constructing the image you want to convey. Swartz did the deed without being prepared to pay the price. In that sense, he did indeed bring it upon himself.
Aaron Swartz did a lot of things, most of them good, some of them not so much. But the man was a fallen zealot, not a saint. It does nobody any good to put him on a pedestal.
Lefty here. It's actually not so bad. I suspect that this is part of why the traditional layout spaces them similarly to the ends of a D-pad: you righties don't seem to have any trouble using that, and for us lefties, it's a similar story with the buttons.
But I am concerned with this splaying them out over the corners of the center touch screen. It could have some advantages in cases where you're expected to alternate between different buttons, but on the whole I can't see it being all that comfortable.
It is perhaps ironic that the nations putting the most serious effort into a non-US-centric Internet have governments even less trustworthy than that of the US itself. Which is saying something, in light of the recent surveillance stuff, but it's no less true for that.
The open hardware is nice, but Intel totally blew it on the reasons why the RPi is popular: it's "powerful enough" while being very small and very cheap. Minnowboard's extra power isn't by enough to justify that kind of a price jump, and the rest falls squarely under YAGNI, therefore making no difference.
This is something of a pity. I'd like to see an RPi with more expandability, but I was thinking more along the lines of a single Thunderbolt port. You could do that without increasing the price or size by all that much, and it's an option Intel could have gone with. But instead they got the RPi market mixed up with the build-your-own-gaming-rig market, and that's just plain not going to end well.
OK, much as I believe in evolution, what you're saying here is simply not true. Evolution takes place over time scales so long that humanity as we know it has not been around for long enough to observe it directly in nature, even if the first humans had somehow innately had knowledge of the scientific method as we currently understand it (which they didn't, so the time we've been able to look is in fact even shorter). Even in the lab, while we have been able to engineer situations similar to those currently thought to drive evolution, we have not observed evolution itself: in particular, speciation still eludes us.
The other problem with your post is that you haven't really addressed the issue you're replying to, because what you've mentioned has nothing to do with falsification. You can't test the power of my tiger-repelling rock by showing that there are no tigers in the area. You have to put me in a tiger cage with the rock and watch me get eaten (or, if the tigers don't come near me, then maybe there's something to the rock after all. Or maybe not; further experiments will be needed). What you mention here is like demonstrating the power of the rock by claiming that there are no tigers in the area. The opposite is another problem that has thus far eluded biologists: how do you construct an experiment that would fail if evolution as we currently understand it were not true? That's still being worked on.
Failed experiments are not sexy. They do not get you grants, and so scientists don't like them (which is not an entirely selfish thing: even scientists have to eat). But when you're doing basic scientific research, your failed experiments are even more important than your successful ones, because they're the ones that actually allow you to eliminate possibilities. Our current obsession with successful experiments is one of ways in which contemporary scientific practice is fundamentally broken.
Make no mistake, I believe in evolution. But the mental discipline required by science is very, very high, and right now, you look like you fall short of the mark. Confidence, even very high confidence, is one thing, but there's a step beyond confidence which may well be the only thing science forbids. And it looks like you have taken it.
But if the NSA can get in, then it is only a matter of time before someone else figures out how. Whether or not I trust the NSA barely even matters, because I certainly don't trust this next entity.
This is why I prefer something the NSA can't get into: there's probably nobody else who can either. The NSA's cracking efforts hold considerable value for that reason: they can, and should, be letting us know when our machines are not secure enough. The problem arises when they fail to do this, which seems to have been the case in recent years.
Witnesses can be compelled to testify so that they cannot be intimidated into silence.
Two problems, actually. One is that we are dealing, not with a fear of risk, but a phobia towards it: the terms are related, to be sure, but the latter is taken to an irrational degree. If we don't want to spend our lives in padded rooms, then we must be willing to forego the mantra of "Never Again."
But the other problem comes in when the current political fashion of empathy-based arguments comes into play. We are asked to empathize with people who have been traumatized, in the moment of their trauma. Anyone would say "Never Again" in those circumstances: that's a large part of what it means to suffer trauma, and the very definition of empathy demands it from those practicing it. But the recently-traumatized are not known for their rational decision-making abilities. There's a reason we tell people to wait a year, or even longer, before making big decisions. There's a reason we devote whole branches of psychology to studying the effects of trauma. PTSD is no longer one monolithic thing, but a whole spectrum of defined conditions.
This, I think, is where the current phobias come from: a well-meaning but sorely misguided attempt to make decisions by empathizing with people who are in no condition to make those decisions. Pathos has its limits, and we have arrived at the current state by ignoring those limits. Certainly empathy has its place when it comes to the healing process, but when the time comes to make big decisions, we need to step back and look at things more rationally, even when rational thought means accepting the status quo.
"Always" is a strong word to use and speaks more of ideology than of reality.
Not always.
Copyright infringement is theft, plain and simple: you take without permission. That you create a copy in the process is irrelevant: you are still nothing but a common thief.
Why do we even need to have this conversation? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck it isn't a duck unless it is branded a duck?
Welcome to the world of trademark law.
More like IE7 and earlier. 4-6 kinda-sorta did it, except for the killer feature which basically drove most people's decisions to use it in the first place: namely, alpha transparency.
When you know that a character is going to spawn a duplicate who is an evil white guy, you do not make that character anyone other than a white guy. To do so is to invite the sort of brouhaha that serves no purpose and leaves everyone angry.
Once the Valeyard is out of the way, sure. Could have been done before now, too, with basically any incarnation other than the 12th. But this was very uniquely not the time to do that sort of thing.
The only other thing is that such a step should not be mere tokenism: they should do something interesting with the change, rather than having The Doctor not be a white guy just for the sake of having The Doctor not be a white guy. There are plenty of opportunities to do something interesting with this kind of change, going in any of hundreds of different directions. Most of the arguments I've seen for a female or minority Doctor smack of exactly this sort of tokenism -they just want The Doctor to look like them- and that's not a good reason to make creative decisions. Do something creative.
I don't understand. What am I giving the government credit for?
If Slashdot only updated when there was a story more important than the previous one, it wouldn't update very often.
Actually, you really can cook some molecules to death. This is what the Maillard reactions are: amino acids react with reducing sugars, but they require high heat. That's a large part of what cooking is: applying heat so that these reactions can happen.
In some ways that's a digression, because Vitamin C isn't an amino acid (though some other vitamins are). But under high heat, it can (and commonly does) go through its own sorts of chemical reactions, and by the end, even though all the atoms that went into the reaction are still there, they're not configured as Vitamin C anymore.
This is how you cook (some) molecules to death.
"Prewritten software consulting"? It's like the double rainbow of taxes: what does it MEAN?!
CC0 is probably as close as you can get to having no license, given the existence of jurisdictions where you can't actually have no license.
I'm told I do decently enough at beatboxing. I don't speak the languages mentioned in the article, but my big secret has always been to reduce each sound to a pronounceable syllable. Then it's just talking in meter, even if what you're saying is nonsense.
It sounds like this is the "I'm not Obama" award, counterpart to the "I'm not Bush" award that Obama was given. I saw this coming a mile away. The Peace Prize has been a joke for years.
That's strong typing, not static typing. There's a difference.
Certainly it's a problem that text doesn't convey as much information as voice or video, but I'm forced to wonder if that's really the problem. Ten minutes on XBox Live would be enough to convince a lot of people that voice chat, despite conveying more information than text, actually made the situation worse. Currently many people prefer video chat to either text or voice, but there's still not much evidence that it has really been helping matters. That leads me to think that whatever this fundamental disconnect is, it's not based on how much information can be gleaned.
Neither, however, does it exclude the possibility that maybe we do have to be; that some level of social activity is, on a mental level, just as vital as food is to the body.