All the information they ask you all have the same purpose : to judge how risky you are in order to determine how much they will lend you and in which conditions (rate, guarantees,...). Having a rich and stable family that can help you is much better than you having a family that that needs help. This will be taken into account, just like your job, your health, your criminal record,... If they don't ask questions, it may not be a good sign, because they will assume you are high risk by default.
Google may be savage but Google is legal. Google won't empty your bank account without your permission, Google won't ask you for a ransom, Google won't use you computer as a proxy for all kind of illegal activity. That's also why it is better to be in debt to a bank than to the mafia, no matter how savage banks are. Sure, debt collectors are annoying and they may take your house but at least your life will be safe and you won't be mailed body parts of family members.
And what reason, do you think, explains why governments reduced that tax on diesel?
The most convincing reason I've heard is that originally, it was a way for the government to tax personal cars more than trucks. Cars used gas and truck use diesel so that was an effective solution. You see, personal cars are for a large part run with disposable income, where trucks are an essential part of the economy, which mean they can't tax them as much before being disruptive. Furthermore, long haul trucks have range that allows them to take advantage of lower prices in foreign countries, which creates competition. Personal diesel cars are a reaction to this policy. But even then, it still fulfills its purpose since professionals are more likely to choose diesel than "recreational" drivers.
Note that the trend is going back to using gasoline as new, more efficient engines are coming out and the difference in fuel price is not as significant.
The real reason we have a lot of Diesel cars in Europe is because of taxes. Gasoline is taxed more than diesel and cars tend to consume more. People are quick to do the maths and opt for the more economical solution, especially those who drive a lot.
Firefox follows the same path (forcing https). If fact it tends to follow Chrome's every move... AFAIK Safari does it too. I'm not sure about IE/Edge and all the small players (Opera,...).
Not necessarily. It would range from unharmed to killing everybody in at least several capsules. One one hand, because the Hyperloop is a rather straight tunnel, the capsule probably won't tumble or hit anything head-on. On the other hand, it is a vacuum, which mean there is a risk of implosion. Thunferf00t made some YouTube videos about that that. And though I don't believe his scenario where the whole tube is destroyed and everyone inside is killed, it would still be bad.
BTW, the flaw in Thunferf00t's catastrophic argument, I think, is that he doesn't take the extreme length of the tube. Both in absolute terms and relative to its diameter. It would be about 100000 times longer than it is wide.
The only company that lead us to Doom is id Software and it isn't based in Silicon Valley. Don't listen to the doomsayers, unless they are from id Software of course.
This is the website, not the browser that's asking you. Usually it is just a popup saying "we use cookies" with an OK button and a link to their privacy policy. There is no "refuse" option. This changed absolutely nothing to the way cookies are used and you can still configure your browser to refuse or accept them, but now you have popups. The intention was that website would let you choose if you want cookies and adapt accordingly. As if the developers would actually spend time and money implementing a feature that will hurt them when a popup saying "cookies or GTFO" complies with the law and works just as well for 99.9% of users.
Facebook is just providing a category to advertisers here. It doesn't mean at all they will allow hate speech to appear in ads. And if they do, this is another but completely unrelated matter. TFA goes on and on about how they are outraged because they were able to submit an acceptable ad to be seen by unacceptable people. If it means that "jew haters" shouldn't be able to get ads, by all means, make me a Nazi.
Removing the category also prevent anti hate speech organizations from targeting the people they want to change. I suppose it also prevents advertisers from filtering out "jew haters". Typical bury-your-head-in-the-sand type PR move. Removing the category won't make the people go away. And if anything, it won't stop advertisers who target these people for bad reasons. They are probably already using correlations to avoid scrutiny. As members of hate groups, they already know all they subtle ways they use to recognize each others.
Ethanol and bio-diesel are essentially trivial. For ethanol, you just need a bit of programming and compatible rubber parts. For bio-diesel, that's essentially nothing. Older diesel engines can burn almost anything, from rocket fuel to vegetable oil and used motor oil. Newer engines may be more picky, especially about impurities, but for the rest, that's just a matter of programming again. In France, there is already ethanol mixed with gasoline (usually 10%). I don't know about diesel but some people illegally put vegetable oil in their car with little ill effect. The problem is that biofuels are expensive and compete with crops for food. And 3rd generation fuels based on micro-algae, not competing with food crops are not commercially available yet.
LSD is a freakin' drug. It is not the miracle substance that will make you better against the government conspiracy blah blah blah.
Yes, LSD is fun. No, it won't kill you. Want to try, sure, go ahead. There are risks but if you take the necessary precautions, it is not that risky.
But as a productivity booster, no way. I suspect it is a bit like cocaine : you feel better but you aren't. It may give you a bit of inspiration if you are in a creative profession but I don't see how it can help with the rational thinking that is required to take advantage of it. Now, this is about microdosing, not tripping. This, I am even more skeptical. The placebo effect is strong, and I know that LSD tends to have a high short term tolerance. I am waiting for the serious peer-reviewed studies on that one (feel free to share).
If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps....?
Smartphones are becoming the opposite of a luxury. We are arriving at a point where it is more expensive living without a smartphone than living with one. A second-hand Android can cost literally zero thanks to people discarding perfectly good phones because it is not the latest model. The other cost is the plan that goes with it, which can go to zero if you take advantage of free public wifi. Now with a smartphone, you have : a phone (duh), a TV, a computer, a notebook, a camera, a flashlight, a map,... Just being able to search the internet for good deals can make up for the cost of a smartphone 100x. A smartphone is also portable, a very important consideration when you are homeless or just have to move a lot. In fact, if you don't have a fixed home address, your phone may be the only reliable way to contact you.
Sounds a little like you are blaming FF for the fact that the extension devs are too lazy to provide their users with a way to trust their addons. Is that right?
I think he is blaming FF for not letting the user choose. Walled gardens are not a terrible idea. Protecting the user against himself is sometimes necessary. But the thing is : we have enough of this already. A lot of Firefox users use it because they want to keep control, otherwise they would have just use the default option of IE/Edge, Safari or Chrome. They don't use it to let the Mozilla foundation be their nanny.
Hacking bootloaders is not the solution. While it does help taking control of devices it also makes you vulnerable from hackers, police, etc...
What you want is user override. It means the ability to create your own root of trust so that you can decide what to allow. The next best thing is allow you to enable or disable security at will. The procedure should not be too easy and most importantly, require physical access. For example : connect the phone via USB to a computer, run a command or special software on the computer and confirm on the device.
And instead of trying to hack locked phones, a better idea would be to not buy locked phones in the first place. On Android, there is plenty of phones with unlockable bootloaders. Truly free phones are much harder to come by though. And they tend to be overpriced crap.
In one form or another, social media is here to stay, there is no escaping it. It is the natural result of connecting people. So we might as well integrate it into education rather then turn a blind eye to it. All the things you blame twitter already exist on school grounds. Bullying is a thing. Self-developed opinion? Just try not having the same tastes as your classmates and you will end up being the bullied. This behavior now spills on Twitter and Instagram, but unlike with school, there is no adult supervision, so I don't consider it a bad thing if the teacher is present here too. Unfortunately, parents seem to be overwhelmed by this technology and they either demonize it or act like kids themselves. Very few manage to use it like responsible adults and teach their kids to do the same. These are all wonderful tools. We just tend to use them like idiots.
In other words, the casting decision not only doesn't reflect how things really work, but it actively reinforces a stereotype.
Yes, that's what I think. Unless they want to make a point.
For example, putting a black girl as a hacker (i.e. breaking the stereotype) is good if you want the character to grab the audience attention, but then you have to devote some bit of the story to her as a person rather than just the button pusher than comes with the computer. It can also be used as a cheap trick when your story doesn't manage to stand on its own : "hey guys, I have this generic idea for a movie to be poorly executed, but I made the hacker a black girl, so at least, there is something to talk about".
There is, I think, an attention budget that filmmakers have to manage. And if they decide to spend part of that budget breaking a stereotype, it means there is less for other elements. It is just like how professional photographers frame a picture so that only it shows only what they want to show and then use depth-of-field to blur out unnecessary details.
Alternatively, all you have to do is install batteries at home and go off grid. Accepting electricity from consumer panels is a cost for the utilities. Making them do so is essentially subsidizing consumer panels, which may be a good thing. No one is protecting the utilities, they are just not forced to lose money.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"? I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie.
In fact, there is a reason for stereotypes. That's to not distract viewers from what the filmmakers really want to show in their movie.
For example the scenario calls for some computer stuff, so they need a computer guy. The computer guy is that not important to the story, and his race and gender even less so. So what they do is tap in the expectations of the public : a computer guy should be a nerdy white male. If they diverge from the stereotype, people will notice that and the character will draw attention, but it is not what they want, they don't want you to think "hey, a black girl is playing the hacker, interesting", when that hacker is totally secondary to the story.
What made me realize that is the comment of a sound director about dubbing screeching tires sounds for a car driving on gravel. He said that, yes, he knows it is wrong, but it is a short scene, and most people probably don't even notice the gravel. So as the car accelerates, if it makes the proper sound, spectators will think "what is this sound? oh yes, gravel" for a second, and this is not what you want from a breathtaking action scene. He also said that he has to adapt. It it is clearly shown that the car is on gravel, that the gravel is important or that spectators become too knowledgeable of this particular trope, he will use the correct sound because doing otherwise would be the distraction.
It looks like you need around 10kg/cm2 to squeeze juice. The idiocy of the machine is that it achieves this kind of pressure by squeezing the whole pack at once, which indeed requires 4 tons of force. A smarter design would squeeze the pack bit by bit and achieve high pressure by applying moderate force on a small area. And that's indeed what happens when you press the pack by hand. Your hand can only produce maybe 30kg of force but it is applied only on your fingertips. The result is a pressure similar to that 4 ton press.
AFAIK, when determining the number of calories of a food item, formulas are used to subtract the caloric values of waste products. Essentially it would be : burn food, get a number, burn shit, get a number, the difference is the number of food calories. Indigestible products are zero calorie, because what you eat is essentially the same as what you shit.
Approximations are used to get an estimate. I think the formula is : 4 per gram of protein/carb, 9 per gram of fat, dietary fibers don't count. It is not perfect but making it so that all food calories are the same is the goal.
Maybe but for now, they are the underdog. They don't come close to Valve's Steam for distribution, don't have Nintendo's licenses and are losing to Sony's PS4. They are only relevant because they have Windows. They are just trying not to be ignored here.
Molly usually means MDMA in crystal/powder form, ecstasy in pill form. Pills contain inactive binders but besides this, it says nothing about purity. Molly crystals can also be meth, alum, anything. There is no shortage of vaguely crystalline translucent substances. If you look at esctasydata.org you'll see that the most pills sold as ecstasy contain only MDMA as an active substance and that not all "molly" is pure. As for safety, crystal is easier to dose visually but pills are more a bit more traceable. In the end, one is not better than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
All the information they ask you all have the same purpose : to judge how risky you are in order to determine how much they will lend you and in which conditions (rate, guarantees, ...). ... If they don't ask questions, it may not be a good sign, because they will assume you are high risk by default.
Having a rich and stable family that can help you is much better than you having a family that that needs help. This will be taken into account, just like your job, your health, your criminal record,
Google may be savage but Google is legal.
Google won't empty your bank account without your permission, Google won't ask you for a ransom, Google won't use you computer as a proxy for all kind of illegal activity.
That's also why it is better to be in debt to a bank than to the mafia, no matter how savage banks are. Sure, debt collectors are annoying and they may take your house but at least your life will be safe and you won't be mailed body parts of family members.
And what reason, do you think, explains why governments reduced that tax on diesel?
The most convincing reason I've heard is that originally, it was a way for the government to tax personal cars more than trucks. Cars used gas and truck use diesel so that was an effective solution.
You see, personal cars are for a large part run with disposable income, where trucks are an essential part of the economy, which mean they can't tax them as much before being disruptive. Furthermore, long haul trucks have range that allows them to take advantage of lower prices in foreign countries, which creates competition.
Personal diesel cars are a reaction to this policy. But even then, it still fulfills its purpose since professionals are more likely to choose diesel than "recreational" drivers.
Note that the trend is going back to using gasoline as new, more efficient engines are coming out and the difference in fuel price is not as significant.
The real reason we have a lot of Diesel cars in Europe is because of taxes.
Gasoline is taxed more than diesel and cars tend to consume more. People are quick to do the maths and opt for the more economical solution, especially those who drive a lot.
Maybe use browser other than Chrome??
Firefox follows the same path (forcing https). If fact it tends to follow Chrome's every move... ...).
AFAIK Safari does it too.
I'm not sure about IE/Edge and all the small players (Opera,
Not necessarily. It would range from unharmed to killing everybody in at least several capsules.
One one hand, because the Hyperloop is a rather straight tunnel, the capsule probably won't tumble or hit anything head-on.
On the other hand, it is a vacuum, which mean there is a risk of implosion.
Thunferf00t made some YouTube videos about that that. And though I don't believe his scenario where the whole tube is destroyed and everyone inside is killed, it would still be bad.
BTW, the flaw in Thunferf00t's catastrophic argument, I think, is that he doesn't take the extreme length of the tube. Both in absolute terms and relative to its diameter. It would be about 100000 times longer than it is wide.
The only company that lead us to Doom is id Software and it isn't based in Silicon Valley.
Don't listen to the doomsayers, unless they are from id Software of course.
This is the website, not the browser that's asking you.
Usually it is just a popup saying "we use cookies" with an OK button and a link to their privacy policy. There is no "refuse" option. This changed absolutely nothing to the way cookies are used and you can still configure your browser to refuse or accept them, but now you have popups.
The intention was that website would let you choose if you want cookies and adapt accordingly. As if the developers would actually spend time and money implementing a feature that will hurt them when a popup saying "cookies or GTFO" complies with the law and works just as well for 99.9% of users.
Facebook is just providing a category to advertisers here. It doesn't mean at all they will allow hate speech to appear in ads. And if they do, this is another but completely unrelated matter.
TFA goes on and on about how they are outraged because they were able to submit an acceptable ad to be seen by unacceptable people. If it means that "jew haters" shouldn't be able to get ads, by all means, make me a Nazi.
Removing the category also prevent anti hate speech organizations from targeting the people they want to change. I suppose it also prevents advertisers from filtering out "jew haters". Typical bury-your-head-in-the-sand type PR move. Removing the category won't make the people go away.
And if anything, it won't stop advertisers who target these people for bad reasons. They are probably already using correlations to avoid scrutiny. As members of hate groups, they already know all they subtle ways they use to recognize each others.
Google X is essentially a modern day Xerox PARC or Bell labs. It is a pure research center financed by a company that has way too much money.
In soviet Russia windows make bats crash. .bat make Windows crash.
In capitalist America,
Ethanol and bio-diesel are essentially trivial.
For ethanol, you just need a bit of programming and compatible rubber parts. For bio-diesel, that's essentially nothing. Older diesel engines can burn almost anything, from rocket fuel to vegetable oil and used motor oil. Newer engines may be more picky, especially about impurities, but for the rest, that's just a matter of programming again.
In France, there is already ethanol mixed with gasoline (usually 10%). I don't know about diesel but some people illegally put vegetable oil in their car with little ill effect.
The problem is that biofuels are expensive and compete with crops for food. And 3rd generation fuels based on micro-algae, not competing with food crops are not commercially available yet.
LSD is a freakin' drug. It is not the miracle substance that will make you better against the government conspiracy blah blah blah.
Yes, LSD is fun. No, it won't kill you. Want to try, sure, go ahead. There are risks but if you take the necessary precautions, it is not that risky.
But as a productivity booster, no way. I suspect it is a bit like cocaine : you feel better but you aren't. It may give you a bit of inspiration if you are in a creative profession but I don't see how it can help with the rational thinking that is required to take advantage of it.
Now, this is about microdosing, not tripping. This, I am even more skeptical. The placebo effect is strong, and I know that LSD tends to have a high short term tolerance. I am waiting for the serious peer-reviewed studies on that one (feel free to share).
If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps....?
Smartphones are becoming the opposite of a luxury. We are arriving at a point where it is more expensive living without a smartphone than living with one. ... Just being able to search the internet for good deals can make up for the cost of a smartphone 100x. A smartphone is also portable, a very important consideration when you are homeless or just have to move a lot. In fact, if you don't have a fixed home address, your phone may be the only reliable way to contact you.
A second-hand Android can cost literally zero thanks to people discarding perfectly good phones because it is not the latest model. The other cost is the plan that goes with it, which can go to zero if you take advantage of free public wifi.
Now with a smartphone, you have : a phone (duh), a TV, a computer, a notebook, a camera, a flashlight, a map,
People like to pretend that sexual harassment doesn't exist, but a lot of people haven't worked 100 hour weeks at startups.
I thought women knew better than to work 100 hour weeks for somebody else's profits.
Sounds a little like you are blaming FF for the fact that the extension devs are too lazy to provide their users with a way to trust their addons. Is that right?
I think he is blaming FF for not letting the user choose.
Walled gardens are not a terrible idea. Protecting the user against himself is sometimes necessary. But the thing is : we have enough of this already. A lot of Firefox users use it because they want to keep control, otherwise they would have just use the default option of IE/Edge, Safari or Chrome. They don't use it to let the Mozilla foundation be their nanny.
Hacking bootloaders is not the solution.
While it does help taking control of devices it also makes you vulnerable from hackers, police, etc...
What you want is user override. It means the ability to create your own root of trust so that you can decide what to allow. The next best thing is allow you to enable or disable security at will. The procedure should not be too easy and most importantly, require physical access. For example : connect the phone via USB to a computer, run a command or special software on the computer and confirm on the device.
And instead of trying to hack locked phones, a better idea would be to not buy locked phones in the first place. On Android, there is plenty of phones with unlockable bootloaders. Truly free phones are much harder to come by though. And they tend to be overpriced crap.
In one form or another, social media is here to stay, there is no escaping it. It is the natural result of connecting people.
So we might as well integrate it into education rather then turn a blind eye to it.
All the things you blame twitter already exist on school grounds. Bullying is a thing. Self-developed opinion? Just try not having the same tastes as your classmates and you will end up being the bullied. This behavior now spills on Twitter and Instagram, but unlike with school, there is no adult supervision, so I don't consider it a bad thing if the teacher is present here too. Unfortunately, parents seem to be overwhelmed by this technology and they either demonize it or act like kids themselves. Very few manage to use it like responsible adults and teach their kids to do the same.
These are all wonderful tools. We just tend to use them like idiots.
In other words, the casting decision not only doesn't reflect how things really work, but it actively reinforces a stereotype.
Yes, that's what I think. Unless they want to make a point.
For example, putting a black girl as a hacker (i.e. breaking the stereotype) is good if you want the character to grab the audience attention, but then you have to devote some bit of the story to her as a person rather than just the button pusher than comes with the computer. It can also be used as a cheap trick when your story doesn't manage to stand on its own : "hey guys, I have this generic idea for a movie to be poorly executed, but I made the hacker a black girl, so at least, there is something to talk about".
There is, I think, an attention budget that filmmakers have to manage. And if they decide to spend part of that budget breaking a stereotype, it means there is less for other elements. It is just like how professional photographers frame a picture so that only it shows only what they want to show and then use depth-of-field to blur out unnecessary details.
Alternatively, all you have to do is install batteries at home and go off grid.
Accepting electricity from consumer panels is a cost for the utilities. Making them do so is essentially subsidizing consumer panels, which may be a good thing. No one is protecting the utilities, they are just not forced to lose money.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"?
I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie.
In fact, there is a reason for stereotypes. That's to not distract viewers from what the filmmakers really want to show in their movie.
For example the scenario calls for some computer stuff, so they need a computer guy. The computer guy is that not important to the story, and his race and gender even less so. So what they do is tap in the expectations of the public : a computer guy should be a nerdy white male. If they diverge from the stereotype, people will notice that and the character will draw attention, but it is not what they want, they don't want you to think "hey, a black girl is playing the hacker, interesting", when that hacker is totally secondary to the story.
What made me realize that is the comment of a sound director about dubbing screeching tires sounds for a car driving on gravel. He said that, yes, he knows it is wrong, but it is a short scene, and most people probably don't even notice the gravel. So as the car accelerates, if it makes the proper sound, spectators will think "what is this sound? oh yes, gravel" for a second, and this is not what you want from a breathtaking action scene. He also said that he has to adapt. It it is clearly shown that the car is on gravel, that the gravel is important or that spectators become too knowledgeable of this particular trope, he will use the correct sound because doing otherwise would be the distraction.
It looks like you need around 10kg/cm2 to squeeze juice.
The idiocy of the machine is that it achieves this kind of pressure by squeezing the whole pack at once, which indeed requires 4 tons of force. A smarter design would squeeze the pack bit by bit and achieve high pressure by applying moderate force on a small area.
And that's indeed what happens when you press the pack by hand. Your hand can only produce maybe 30kg of force but it is applied only on your fingertips. The result is a pressure similar to that 4 ton press.
AFAIK, when determining the number of calories of a food item, formulas are used to subtract the caloric values of waste products.
Essentially it would be : burn food, get a number, burn shit, get a number, the difference is the number of food calories. Indigestible products are zero calorie, because what you eat is essentially the same as what you shit.
Approximations are used to get an estimate. I think the formula is : 4 per gram of protein/carb, 9 per gram of fat, dietary fibers don't count. It is not perfect but making it so that all food calories are the same is the goal.
Maybe but for now, they are the underdog.
They don't come close to Valve's Steam for distribution, don't have Nintendo's licenses and are losing to Sony's PS4. They are only relevant because they have Windows. They are just trying not to be ignored here.
Molly usually means MDMA in crystal/powder form, ecstasy in pill form.
Pills contain inactive binders but besides this, it says nothing about purity. Molly crystals can also be meth, alum, anything. There is no shortage of vaguely crystalline translucent substances. If you look at esctasydata.org you'll see that the most pills sold as ecstasy contain only MDMA as an active substance and that not all "molly" is pure.
As for safety, crystal is easier to dose visually but pills are more a bit more traceable. In the end, one is not better than the other.