Remember how Fox News and conservative Slashdotters keep bringing up Obama "learning on the job", or being a mere "community organizer"? And now they unashamedly voted in someone with even worse qualifications? Those Slashdotters should own up and admit they're fucking idiots.
Yeah you do. They're the youth branches of economic conservative parties. They are advocating for feudalism - they want a new aristocracy, but they style themselves as "job creators", even though they don't create jobs. They demand society give them even more benefits simply for having money, most of which they did not gain through personal effort.
Well maybe if people stopped voting to take away their own power over the government, the "government" wouldn't be overrun by the companies that prop up failed companies. No, instead, what we have is people telling each other lies that if they vote away their own power, those companies would be free to magically create jobs that they weren't inclined to create in the first place.
But they're both lies about the world fitting into some nice, clean, pure ideology, and that if it isn't working, it's because the application of that ideology wasn't pure enough.
General intelligence doesn't exist. Every intelligent being we know is a specializer. Sure, people can learn lots of things well enough to replicate them, and it has served us well for hundreds of thousands of years. But most people wouldn't consider replication "general intelligence".
This "proper definition" suffers the same problem with every other definition of intelligence: many humans don't meet the requirement for it either.
I would hazard a guess most people's response to a novel situation is to do what they've always done before - panic, do/say the first thing that comes to mind. No formulating at all. In fact, the very opposite. If their initial response didn't work, try it again and again.
What we consider "intelligent" often aren't about the initial response, but about how we find ways to improve upon experience - either our own, or from other people who have had the same experience. If anything, we value really highly the ability of people to train themselves to be more machine like, whether that's sports, music, science or maths.
The red flag is that banks were looking to get into in the first place.
If an entire industry known for doing whatever it takes to fuck over customers wants to go into unregulated territory, anyone who still believes that it will all work out due to some market fairy invisible hand shows themselves to be gullible idiots.
Then ask, do you really need to buy that thing, and that particular brand? Just stop buying so much pointless shit in the first place. If you have so much stuff you want to buy that you can't get within walking/driving/bus/train distance, then that says to me you probably don't need two thirds of that crap.
And the Libertarian argument is stupid, because less effective government makes people want more effective government because most people want things to actually work.
Wanting to have an effective government is not the same as thinking "there ought to be a law against that", because it's not about how many laws there are. It's about how effective are its policies. In some cases it may increase the number of laws, but just as equally we should be looking to remove ineffective laws. And we should be doing that by holding government to account through voting and removing money from the election process.
Fixing the government is hard work. Not fixing the government leads to bad government, which leads to people voting in an oppressive government thinking they're sticking it to the man.
It's like if you have health problems from obesity, and you try to fix it by punishing your body with crash diets until it behaves. There's no sense in that.
It's not a strawman. American libertarians keep going on about deregulation and naive free markets, thinking corporations will actually behave themselves. If that is not wanting to give power over to the corporations, I don't know what is.
Why aren't the Trump-loving libertarians opposing this on the fact that it will be the US taxpayer paying for the wall when their dear leader promised them the Mexicans would pay for it?
Could it be libertarians are just a bunch of hypocritical cunts?
FAIL. None of your links point to an actual Democrat saying anything of the sort. Just more Republicunts like you claiming Democrats want an open border without actual quotes. Go kill yourself, you're too fucking stupid to live on this planet.
The Book Smugglers of Timbuktu - the (ongoing) story of the history of Timbuktu and all the intrigue around its famed manuscript collection, and the threat from Al Qaeda.
The Water Kingdom - an analysis of China as a civilization revolving around water and flood managment, written by Philip Ball who was an editor for Nature at one point.
I Contain Multitudes - fascinating look at just how much we don't know about the role of bacteria in all aspects of life. The things we truly don't know about how microbes really work makes modern medicine look like folk remedies. His Royal Institution talk is a good taste of what the book goes into.
The Dark Forest - interesting where he went with it. Totally not expecting the direction of the story from where the Three Body Problem left off.
A Murder is Announced - getting around to reading Agatha Christie. It's a good one to start on.
Turns out I read more than I think I did.
Just starting on "A Mind for Numbers", and after that would be "Beyond Weird", also by Philip Ball.
If the toy can do anything as sophisticated as tracking people, then it is not a toy. Give the kid something that will actually stimulate their minds instead of yet another over-hyped, pre-built, can't-take-apart boring piece of crap.
What do you mean bullcrap? You're talking about disclaimers. He's talking about what the company said, presumably after contacting them about obviously wrong results. ie, some customer service person.
Just because they put disclaimers doesn't mean that person-to-person customer service can't then make questionable claims.
You must be really gullible if you think companies only say what's on their disclaimers.
Slashdot Mirror
Fools and their bitcoin are soon parted.
Ah, another cunt admitting they have no factual counterargument.
Remember how Fox News and conservative Slashdotters keep bringing up Obama "learning on the job", or being a mere "community organizer"? And now they unashamedly voted in someone with even worse qualifications? Those Slashdotters should own up and admit they're fucking idiots.
A capitalist economy with social programmes (and a democratic process) is a social democracy, you moron.
Yeah you do. They're the youth branches of economic conservative parties. They are advocating for feudalism - they want a new aristocracy, but they style themselves as "job creators", even though they don't create jobs. They demand society give them even more benefits simply for having money, most of which they did not gain through personal effort.
Well maybe if people stopped voting to take away their own power over the government, the "government" wouldn't be overrun by the companies that prop up failed companies. No, instead, what we have is people telling each other lies that if they vote away their own power, those companies would be free to magically create jobs that they weren't inclined to create in the first place.
But they're both lies about the world fitting into some nice, clean, pure ideology, and that if it isn't working, it's because the application of that ideology wasn't pure enough.
General intelligence doesn't exist. Every intelligent being we know is a specializer. Sure, people can learn lots of things well enough to replicate them, and it has served us well for hundreds of thousands of years. But most people wouldn't consider replication "general intelligence".
This "proper definition" suffers the same problem with every other definition of intelligence: many humans don't meet the requirement for it either.
I would hazard a guess most people's response to a novel situation is to do what they've always done before - panic, do/say the first thing that comes to mind. No formulating at all. In fact, the very opposite. If their initial response didn't work, try it again and again.
What we consider "intelligent" often aren't about the initial response, but about how we find ways to improve upon experience - either our own, or from other people who have had the same experience. If anything, we value really highly the ability of people to train themselves to be more machine like, whether that's sports, music, science or maths.
The red flag is that banks were looking to get into in the first place.
If an entire industry known for doing whatever it takes to fuck over customers wants to go into unregulated territory, anyone who still believes that it will all work out due to some market fairy invisible hand shows themselves to be gullible idiots.
Then ask, do you really need to buy that thing, and that particular brand? Just stop buying so much pointless shit in the first place. If you have so much stuff you want to buy that you can't get within walking/driving/bus/train distance, then that says to me you probably don't need two thirds of that crap.
No one thinks they have our best interests in mind, idiot. We should be taking control of them, not rage quit the game.
Stop being lazy and stupid.
And the Libertarian argument is stupid, because less effective government makes people want more effective government because most people want things to actually work.
Wanting to have an effective government is not the same as thinking "there ought to be a law against that", because it's not about how many laws there are. It's about how effective are its policies. In some cases it may increase the number of laws, but just as equally we should be looking to remove ineffective laws. And we should be doing that by holding government to account through voting and removing money from the election process.
Fixing the government is hard work. Not fixing the government leads to bad government, which leads to people voting in an oppressive government thinking they're sticking it to the man.
It's like if you have health problems from obesity, and you try to fix it by punishing your body with crash diets until it behaves. There's no sense in that.
It's not a strawman. American libertarians keep going on about deregulation and naive free markets, thinking corporations will actually behave themselves. If that is not wanting to give power over to the corporations, I don't know what is.
Why aren't the Trump-loving libertarians opposing this on the fact that it will be the US taxpayer paying for the wall when their dear leader promised them the Mexicans would pay for it?
Could it be libertarians are just a bunch of hypocritical cunts?
FAIL. None of your links point to an actual Democrat saying anything of the sort. Just more Republicunts like you claiming Democrats want an open border without actual quotes. Go kill yourself, you're too fucking stupid to live on this planet.
If you want a protected southern border, then why would you waste money on a wall?
I managed a few books, thankfully all good.
The Book Smugglers of Timbuktu - the (ongoing) story of the history of Timbuktu and all the intrigue around its famed manuscript collection, and the threat from Al Qaeda.
The Water Kingdom - an analysis of China as a civilization revolving around water and flood managment, written by Philip Ball who was an editor for Nature at one point.
I Contain Multitudes - fascinating look at just how much we don't know about the role of bacteria in all aspects of life. The things we truly don't know about how microbes really work makes modern medicine look like folk remedies. His Royal Institution talk is a good taste of what the book goes into.
The Dark Forest - interesting where he went with it. Totally not expecting the direction of the story from where the Three Body Problem left off.
A Murder is Announced - getting around to reading Agatha Christie. It's a good one to start on.
Turns out I read more than I think I did.
Just starting on "A Mind for Numbers", and after that would be "Beyond Weird", also by Philip Ball.
And which culture is that, and where's your evidence?
If the toy can do anything as sophisticated as tracking people, then it is not a toy. Give the kid something that will actually stimulate their minds instead of yet another over-hyped, pre-built, can't-take-apart boring piece of crap.
Bernie Madoff's fund also rose by a lot to get to an insane peak value.
Don't be a moran.
Why would there be a final death? Why kill goose that lays crypto-eggs?
What do you mean bullcrap? You're talking about disclaimers. He's talking about what the company said, presumably after contacting them about obviously wrong results. ie, some customer service person.
Just because they put disclaimers doesn't mean that person-to-person customer service can't then make questionable claims.
You must be really gullible if you think companies only say what's on their disclaimers.
What sample? You linked to a blog post, with no link to the actual sample. Just "a recent study": those words, not a link.
And then he concludes that it somehow is the biggest reason birth rates are falling across the Western world?
You're as gullible as shit.
You had a discount, but you used it on the "don't have security follow me around" add-on service.