I have neer seen porn on Wikipedia, though truth to be told I have never searched for it. But if someone does it's reasonable to assume that they do want to see porn, isn't it?
The two are not exclusive. Besides, cockroaches don't really have a central conscious brain or something, you can cut their head off and they will continue to live happily.
It would be perfectly fine if that was true, but it isn't. The DMCA and other copyright laws make Youtube legally liable for their users' actions, thus they are not free to show what they want and not what they don't.
Cameras can do the same job, are much cheaper, don't need supervision and can be set up not to be intrusive. A policeman controlling a drone that's patrolling an area could just as well get on his bike and do the patrol himself.
True, there are some words that have an inherent bias, but those aren't really used in Wikipedia articles. Words like hippy, liberal or racist are only biased in certain contexts. The researchers didn't search for actually biased words, but did an algorithmic wordcount in political writings to identify the 'bias' of each word, which I think is far too inaccurate for the confident conclusions they have drawn.
This doesn't always work. For example, if you want to buy a vehicle, do you buy a car (less pollutant emission) or a motorbike (less CO2 emission). But you are right in that while human-caused climate change is still scientifically undecided, most policies to reduce CO2 emissions could be backed up by other arguments. For example, if current extraction technologies don't develop much, we will run out of fossil fuels before causing significant climate change. But in that case we should cut back on our dependence on fossil fuels exactly because they're going to disappear soon.
If the US government wants to change public opinion on climate change, they should have put that money in climate research. Funding some sociologists to prove that people sceptical about human-caused climate change are idiots regardless of their results is exactly why many people distrust science. While politicians like to imagine the masses as a herd of dumb sheep waiting for them to take lead, with education and the internet being available to almost anyone this simply isn't true. What could convince the public would be scientific evidence, which is why it would be a much better strategy to spend money on actual science. Assuming, of course, that the goal is finding the truth and not just pushing a political agenda.
Quick and easy way of dealing with these things, rather than being drug to court.
I'm sure that it's much quicker and easier for the plaintiff not having to go to court and actually proving their claims, but personally I would prefer to have my right to due process.
Slashdot Mirror
I have neer seen porn on Wikipedia, though truth to be told I have never searched for it. But if someone does it's reasonable to assume that they do want to see porn, isn't it?
Oh, yes: in theory, as it hasn't been found.
The Genesis is not the only book saying that every man is a sinner, the book of Job is another one which the Jews also accept.
Which is why I always have a swiss army knife in my pocket, it saves me all the trouble.
order a live band. It's worth the extra cost.
Apparently, it didn't. And if there will be a real war it won't be caused by the US hacking Iran but because Iran creating nukes.
The two are not exclusive. Besides, cockroaches don't really have a central conscious brain or something, you can cut their head off and they will continue to live happily.
Don't forget that folding@home is also basically a big botnet.
VR glasses are nothing new, the big question is whether this one will be actually affordable by the general public.
It would be perfectly fine if that was true, but it isn't. The DMCA and other copyright laws make Youtube legally liable for their users' actions, thus they are not free to show what they want and not what they don't.
Cameras can do the same job, are much cheaper, don't need supervision and can be set up not to be intrusive. A policeman controlling a drone that's patrolling an area could just as well get on his bike and do the patrol himself.
Like, you know, talking to people?
True, there are some words that have an inherent bias, but those aren't really used in Wikipedia articles. Words like hippy, liberal or racist are only biased in certain contexts. The researchers didn't search for actually biased words, but did an algorithmic wordcount in political writings to identify the 'bias' of each word, which I think is far too inaccurate for the confident conclusions they have drawn.
It's much easier to tell by looking whether a video contains nudity then to tell whether its uploader has the right to distribute it.
But if you crowdsource it will be postscreening not prescreening.
The frequency of using individual words is far from an actual political bias.
This doesn't always work. For example, if you want to buy a vehicle, do you buy a car (less pollutant emission) or a motorbike (less CO2 emission). But you are right in that while human-caused climate change is still scientifically undecided, most policies to reduce CO2 emissions could be backed up by other arguments. For example, if current extraction technologies don't develop much, we will run out of fossil fuels before causing significant climate change. But in that case we should cut back on our dependence on fossil fuels exactly because they're going to disappear soon.
Still better than the richest corporation.
Basically, the situation is more complicated than complete backward asshats willing to poison girls just to punish them for trying to become educated
How exactly is it more complicated?
If the US government wants to change public opinion on climate change, they should have put that money in climate research. Funding some sociologists to prove that people sceptical about human-caused climate change are idiots regardless of their results is exactly why many people distrust science. While politicians like to imagine the masses as a herd of dumb sheep waiting for them to take lead, with education and the internet being available to almost anyone this simply isn't true. What could convince the public would be scientific evidence, which is why it would be a much better strategy to spend money on actual science. Assuming, of course, that the goal is finding the truth and not just pushing a political agenda.
Not every Afghan is an extremist. When the alternative is having their girls poisoned, I think many would view it as a lower risk.
Make the schools coeducated. The Taliban will be pissed but hopefully they wouldn't attack boys.
Quick and easy way of dealing with these things, rather than being drug to court.
I'm sure that it's much quicker and easier for the plaintiff not having to go to court and actually proving their claims, but personally I would prefer to have my right to due process.
It's a bit sad that you are the first one actually reading the summary.
It shouldn't be hard to rewrite the code so that it only activates with your consent.