Does anyone actually read anymore or is it just knee-jerk reactions to click-bait pull words? Yes, Facebook DEMANDS you validate your e-mail address. Pretty much every site on the planet does. Facebook OFFERS to allow you to be an idiot and give them your password to do it. Exactly zero percent of this headline or the click-baity article is accurate.
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
I've been told the inability to track a straight line is a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've also been told that difficulty in turning is also a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've been told that the inability to stop is a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that sudden jerky stops are also a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that an engine failing to heat up can be caused by a bad thermostat. I've been told that a car overheating can also be caused by a bad thermostat.
Gosh, it's almost as if opposing extremes in a given system can be caused by the same thing!
""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."
That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.
Uh.. people in strong positions are in a different market. I agree that negotiation isn't a valid excuse because it's not negotiation at that point: it's having done your research to know what market you're in. When I hire, I don't negotiate salary. I have a pay scale based on your skill and that's what you get. If that doesn't work for you, then my company isn't for you. I don't try to hire experienced top-tier salary at the low end of the scale and see if they can negotiate their way up. Who the hell would work for a company like that?
To communicate, share, think, comment is always good.
No! Jesus christ on a cracker, no it's not! The ability to talk unchecked with no consequence for being wrong or inaccurate, is literally killing people. The anti-vaccination movement is driven entirely by the wrong people communicating, sharing, and commenting utter nonsense and people - mostly children - are dying because of it.
Communicating, sharing, commenting is only good when there are consequences for what you've communicated, shared, or commented. And sometimes the consequence needs to be getting your big fat mouth shut for you.
A million upvotes to that truth bomb. I think the message is clear: the kind of people that need a CoC are the kind of people no one wants to work with.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.
Nah.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case because they're adults who are capable of understanding that while adult problems are nuanced and multi-sided, political philosophies tend not to be, and that sometimes sticking to a party line doesn't make sense when it helps the children they're in charge of, even when those children are too dumb to understand that and would rather sit in the corner calling them "power hungry hacks".
The answer is so simple I'm surprised that no one sees it. Perhaps a forest for thye trees situation.
At the bery least, men doctors should not be allowed to treat female patients.
The actual solution is to remove males as physicians. Only allow females to be physicians. The problem will go away.
Can anyone come up with a reason why my solution will not work?
Yeah, I can come up with a great reason why it wouldn't work, and if you'd approached the article without your obvious bias, so would you. You seem to be gleefully glossing over this little tidbit FTFA:
"The more female colleagues a male emergency physician had, the more likely his female patients were to survive as well."
Women do equally well with men and women patients precisely BECAUSE they have so many male colleagues. Yours is typical modern feminist thinking: it's only a problem if it's happening to women. Removing men from being physicians will eventually make women just as bad at treating men as men are currently at treating women. The solution isn't reducing the number of male physicians, but increasing the number of their female colleagues.
Well, yeah - if you're trying to be pedantic. And if that's the case, you're just wrong because he's not talking about the beach or the boardwalk. Venice Beach is a specific place in the neighborhood of Venice, CA. Venice is the neighborhood. Venice Beach is the beach and promenade in the Venice neighborhood.
Because a) it's an opinion piece written by a resident of Venice, California b) that's published in the LA Times for SoCal readers - all of whom know that Venice means Venice, California, and c) only a pedantic asshat with the situational awareness of a dust mite would complain about that. Good lord. You're probably the guy who wanders angrily around the UGa campus in Athens, Georgia trying to figure out where the Parthenon got off to.
I've read books about how to game the systems. I've paid photographers and tried to get feedback on my dating profiles from [...] total strangers. I tried all manner of strategies in making first impressions, created multiple profiles [...] Ordinary guys might as not even exist.... I also have a lot more anxiety at the parts of life that I have failed to experience.... I wish I could have those many thousands of hours and all of the hope of my life back.
Well that's not creepy. That's not creepy at all. That doesn't sound the least bit creepy and there's not one bit of creepy vibe here that a woman would pick up on.
My friend, this is the kind of neckbeard/nice guy talk that makes woman of quality run the other direction. If this is any indicator of how you communicated in the online dating sphere, you have nothing more to do than read what you've written here to understand what the problem is. Luckily there are a lot of ways to fix it, but believing it has anything to do with the way you look or dress or how well-educated you are is not one of them.
"The left" isn't okay with it. Some people on the left are okay with it, and other people - like you - generalize their beliefs to make a point that has no merit.
Your idea isn't terribly fleshed out. Let's say a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for me because I'm black. No problem, right? I'll just go to another baker who will. Except, I live in a town with a bunch of racist fucks like this guy and the one black lady who wants to be a baker can't open a store because the racist building owners won't rent to blacks, the racist service workers wouldn't hook up her utilities if they did, the racist supply company won't sell her ingredients, and the racist bank wouldn't lend her money to start the business, and racist media wouldn't let her advertise to grow it.
You can't just give your money to someone else if there's literally no one else to give it to because your minority status is at odds with the rest of your community. And I can already hear your next argument: well move someplace where that's not the case! Just re-read that paragraph and instead of a single business, apply it to entire towns, counties, even states. The entire point of these laws is that this actually happened in America and we agreed that we're better than that.
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
I remember reading Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" when I was in grad school. He's a brilliant mathematician and I was excited to read his take on the field I had spent the last two years studying. I was blown away when I realized the gist of his book was that computers could never develop consciousness because of quantum randomness that occurs in the cells of the human brain. In other words, he follows the millennium old and thoroughly debunked myth that consciousness arises from "brain stuff". I couldn't understand how someone so smart could have devoted so much time to a subject yet be so ludicrously wrong. I realized shortly thereafter that the great minds are usually great in their areas of expertise, but are often just as looney as your drunk Uncle Bob in those that aren't. In other words, don't take relationship advice from Albert Einstein, and don't listen to warnings on the future of AI from a cosmologist no matter how smart he is.
>> what's the difference between three significant digits and 25
Said no computer science major, ever. (Look up the effect of iteration on small differences, then study up on damping, etc.)
Except, you know... that's not what he said. What he said is
what's the difference between three significant digits and 25 in the face of infinity
which taken in the context of mathematics is an accurate observation. The difference in accuracy between three significant digits and twenty-five significant digits as the requirement for perfect accuracy approaches infinity, is zero. (Look up "Calculus 101", then study up on limits at infinity, etc.)
God, I wish I had mod points. "Online bullying" is not a thing. When you voluntarily and actively seek out and participate in the behavior, it is not bullying.
You don't have friends if you intentionally destroyed the relationship because they have Facebook installed on their phone. You don't even know what the word "friend" means if you'd consider that a rational act. You should really find someone to talk to if you have any trust left whatsoever. I've got a pretty good idea what privacy concerns look like and an even better idea what mental illness looks like, and this is the ravings of someone deep within the latter.
Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
No, not any more than owning a key to my front door gives you "authorization" to use it to enter my home.
Uh.. you'd have a pretty hard time arguing I wasn't authorized to enter your home if you gave me a key. By virtue of giving me the key you've authorized me to enter your home.
... stop calling artificial intelligence because, most of the time, it is not intelligent, it merely reproduces what it was taught to do.
Mod this up, up, and away. "Artificial Intelligence" is not a thing. Because intelligence is an emergent property of an entity, something is either intelligent or it's not. If it's self-generated, then it's just plain old intelligence. If it's not, then it's just a reflection of the intelligence used to program it. There will never be "artificial" intelligence. Machine intelligence perhaps, but then if we want to start making that ridiculous distinction, we need to start talking about "dog intelligence" and "cockroach intelligence" too.
The court is specifically ruling on arrangements between two people in a relationship who share intimate photos without any formal contract between them, and the ruling is simply that each person has a right to control of their image and privacy. This is a good thing and likely is to directly combat the idea of revenge porn and to provide some legal recourse should such an event occur. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared an intimate picture.
Actually, no. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared any kind of picture at all as long as the "victim" deems them intimate. (Frankly, with the ludicrously broad "before, during, or after sexual intercourse" stipulation, that encompasses any picture ever taken during the entire duration of the relationship.) That would include photos taken while vacationing on a beach in Jamaica. This has nothing to do with revenge porn. It's punishing thought crime.
What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.
One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone actually read anymore or is it just knee-jerk reactions to click-bait pull words? Yes, Facebook DEMANDS you validate your e-mail address. Pretty much every site on the planet does. Facebook OFFERS to allow you to be an idiot and give them your password to do it. Exactly zero percent of this headline or the click-baity article is accurate.
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
I've been told the inability to track a straight line is a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've also been told that difficulty in turning is also a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've been told that the inability to stop is a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that sudden jerky stops are also a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that an engine failing to heat up can be caused by a bad thermostat. I've been told that a car overheating can also be caused by a bad thermostat. Gosh, it's almost as if opposing extremes in a given system can be caused by the same thing!
""This person negotiated better" isn't a valid excuse either, unless the job is salary negotiation."
That is backwards. Companies don't pay what is fair and shouldn't. They pay the least they can pay and acquire and retain the talent for as long as they need to. They need the poorly negotiated low salaries to subsidize the people in strong positions who demand better than market rates.
Uh.. people in strong positions are in a different market. I agree that negotiation isn't a valid excuse because it's not negotiation at that point: it's having done your research to know what market you're in. When I hire, I don't negotiate salary. I have a pay scale based on your skill and that's what you get. If that doesn't work for you, then my company isn't for you. I don't try to hire experienced top-tier salary at the low end of the scale and see if they can negotiate their way up. Who the hell would work for a company like that?
To communicate, share, think, comment is always good.
No! Jesus christ on a cracker, no it's not! The ability to talk unchecked with no consequence for being wrong or inaccurate, is literally killing people. The anti-vaccination movement is driven entirely by the wrong people communicating, sharing, and commenting utter nonsense and people - mostly children - are dying because of it. Communicating, sharing, commenting is only good when there are consequences for what you've communicated, shared, or commented. And sometimes the consequence needs to be getting your big fat mouth shut for you.
Then you have at best a child's understanding of "crime" and "evil."
A million upvotes to that truth bomb. I think the message is clear: the kind of people that need a CoC are the kind of people no one wants to work with.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.
Nah.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case because they're adults who are capable of understanding that while adult problems are nuanced and multi-sided, political philosophies tend not to be, and that sometimes sticking to a party line doesn't make sense when it helps the children they're in charge of, even when those children are too dumb to understand that and would rather sit in the corner calling them "power hungry hacks".
The answer is so simple I'm surprised that no one sees it. Perhaps a forest for thye trees situation.
At the bery least, men doctors should not be allowed to treat female patients.
The actual solution is to remove males as physicians. Only allow females to be physicians. The problem will go away.
Can anyone come up with a reason why my solution will not work?
Yeah, I can come up with a great reason why it wouldn't work, and if you'd approached the article without your obvious bias, so would you. You seem to be gleefully glossing over this little tidbit FTFA:
"The more female colleagues a male emergency physician had, the more likely his female patients were to survive as well."
Women do equally well with men and women patients precisely BECAUSE they have so many male colleagues. Yours is typical modern feminist thinking: it's only a problem if it's happening to women. Removing men from being physicians will eventually make women just as bad at treating men as men are currently at treating women. The solution isn't reducing the number of male physicians, but increasing the number of their female colleagues.
Well, yeah - if you're trying to be pedantic. And if that's the case, you're just wrong because he's not talking about the beach or the boardwalk. Venice Beach is a specific place in the neighborhood of Venice, CA. Venice is the neighborhood. Venice Beach is the beach and promenade in the Venice neighborhood.
Because a) it's an opinion piece written by a resident of Venice, California b) that's published in the LA Times for SoCal readers - all of whom know that Venice means Venice, California, and c) only a pedantic asshat with the situational awareness of a dust mite would complain about that. Good lord. You're probably the guy who wanders angrily around the UGa campus in Athens, Georgia trying to figure out where the Parthenon got off to.
I've read books about how to game the systems. I've paid photographers and tried to get feedback on my dating profiles from [...] total strangers. I tried all manner of strategies in making first impressions, created multiple profiles [...] Ordinary guys might as not even exist. ... I also have a lot more anxiety at the parts of life that I have failed to experience. ... I wish I could have those many thousands of hours and all of the hope of my life back.
Well that's not creepy. That's not creepy at all. That doesn't sound the least bit creepy and there's not one bit of creepy vibe here that a woman would pick up on. My friend, this is the kind of neckbeard/nice guy talk that makes woman of quality run the other direction. If this is any indicator of how you communicated in the online dating sphere, you have nothing more to do than read what you've written here to understand what the problem is. Luckily there are a lot of ways to fix it, but believing it has anything to do with the way you look or dress or how well-educated you are is not one of them.
"The left" isn't okay with it. Some people on the left are okay with it, and other people - like you - generalize their beliefs to make a point that has no merit. Your idea isn't terribly fleshed out. Let's say a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for me because I'm black. No problem, right? I'll just go to another baker who will. Except, I live in a town with a bunch of racist fucks like this guy and the one black lady who wants to be a baker can't open a store because the racist building owners won't rent to blacks, the racist service workers wouldn't hook up her utilities if they did, the racist supply company won't sell her ingredients, and the racist bank wouldn't lend her money to start the business, and racist media wouldn't let her advertise to grow it. You can't just give your money to someone else if there's literally no one else to give it to because your minority status is at odds with the rest of your community. And I can already hear your next argument: well move someplace where that's not the case! Just re-read that paragraph and instead of a single business, apply it to entire towns, counties, even states. The entire point of these laws is that this actually happened in America and we agreed that we're better than that.
Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.
UK and most of European salaries are a joke, so I'd call it even.
I remember reading Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" when I was in grad school. He's a brilliant mathematician and I was excited to read his take on the field I had spent the last two years studying. I was blown away when I realized the gist of his book was that computers could never develop consciousness because of quantum randomness that occurs in the cells of the human brain. In other words, he follows the millennium old and thoroughly debunked myth that consciousness arises from "brain stuff". I couldn't understand how someone so smart could have devoted so much time to a subject yet be so ludicrously wrong. I realized shortly thereafter that the great minds are usually great in their areas of expertise, but are often just as looney as your drunk Uncle Bob in those that aren't. In other words, don't take relationship advice from Albert Einstein, and don't listen to warnings on the future of AI from a cosmologist no matter how smart he is.
>> what's the difference between three significant digits and 25 Said no computer science major, ever. (Look up the effect of iteration on small differences, then study up on damping, etc.)
Except, you know... that's not what he said. What he said is
what's the difference between three significant digits and 25 in the face of infinity
which taken in the context of mathematics is an accurate observation. The difference in accuracy between three significant digits and twenty-five significant digits as the requirement for perfect accuracy approaches infinity, is zero. (Look up "Calculus 101", then study up on limits at infinity, etc.)
God, I wish I had mod points. "Online bullying" is not a thing. When you voluntarily and actively seek out and participate in the behavior, it is not bullying.
You don't have friends if you intentionally destroyed the relationship because they have Facebook installed on their phone. You don't even know what the word "friend" means if you'd consider that a rational act. You should really find someone to talk to if you have any trust left whatsoever. I've got a pretty good idea what privacy concerns look like and an even better idea what mental illness looks like, and this is the ravings of someone deep within the latter.
You know how I know you didn't RTFA?
Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
No, not any more than owning a key to my front door gives you "authorization" to use it to enter my home.
Uh.. you'd have a pretty hard time arguing I wasn't authorized to enter your home if you gave me a key. By virtue of giving me the key you've authorized me to enter your home.
... stop calling artificial intelligence because, most of the time, it is not intelligent, it merely reproduces what it was taught to do.
Mod this up, up, and away. "Artificial Intelligence" is not a thing. Because intelligence is an emergent property of an entity, something is either intelligent or it's not. If it's self-generated, then it's just plain old intelligence. If it's not, then it's just a reflection of the intelligence used to program it. There will never be "artificial" intelligence. Machine intelligence perhaps, but then if we want to start making that ridiculous distinction, we need to start talking about "dog intelligence" and "cockroach intelligence" too.
I should take my security concerns from a man who uses "dadada" as his password? Yeah, no thanks.
Seems to me that people dumb enough to be worried about computers outsmarting them are already too late.
The court is specifically ruling on arrangements between two people in a relationship who share intimate photos without any formal contract between them, and the ruling is simply that each person has a right to control of their image and privacy. This is a good thing and likely is to directly combat the idea of revenge porn and to provide some legal recourse should such an event occur. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared an intimate picture.
Actually, no. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared any kind of picture at all as long as the "victim" deems them intimate. (Frankly, with the ludicrously broad "before, during, or after sexual intercourse" stipulation, that encompasses any picture ever taken during the entire duration of the relationship.) That would include photos taken while vacationing on a beach in Jamaica. This has nothing to do with revenge porn. It's punishing thought crime.
What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.
One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today.
I'm gonna guess you write EULAs for a living.