I'm not a fan of Fox news but in this case I think suppression of the video helps ISIS more than showing it. Suppression allows us to ignore the fact that they're a group with behaviors that don't belong in the civilized world, similar to the Nazis. Showing the video is distasteful, but if done on a opt-in basis it allows interested viewers to see their barbarity and develop an appropriate level of anger. Sure, some extremists may become motivated by what they see as strong action but the net effect will be negative as the broader population will be repulsed. You can see this playing out in Jordan right now.
You know, soldiers massacrating people (which is what war is, literally).
In military terms the word massacre has a specific meaning which is narrower than the sense you're using it in. The dictionary version is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", however the military version of the word involves a disparity of force. For example, using a machine gun to mow down unarmed POWs would be a massacre (not to mention a war crime), while using a machine gun to kill armed soldiers attacking your position would not. Killing all inhabitants of a besieged city would be a massacre, inflicting heavy casualties on the soldiers guarding a city prior to it's capture would not.
Why are we stuck in the "one car for every person" model of transportation?
Put simply, ride sharing sucks. The slightly longer answer is that commute time is heavily impacted when you introduce multiple pickup and drop off points to a vehicle route. If riding the bus was awesome then only poor people would drive while rich people would hog up all the mass transit.
Anecdotal example: My morning commute takes roughly 25 minutes door to door by car. I live in a city with excellent public transit and there is a bus stop within easy walking distance of my house. Commute time by bus would be roughly an hour and fifteen minutes door to door.
Yes, that's the system we have now. It sucks but it's the best we've got so far. (There is some difference between an economics system and a political system but the line gets blurred in a hurry and it's usually not worth arguing about)
Fascism was plenty functional it's just that the world didn't particularly like the results. Of course since it was essentially a mixed economy much like we have today that's not surprising. Communism flat out doesn't work, human nature just doesn't mesh well with central planning.
There are essentially only three ways to divide up a scarce resource:
1) Even split
2) Decision by an authority
3) Some kind of points (endless ways to determine the points though)
Any economics system is going to be some combination of the above and none of them are completely fair.
Sounds great, now if only someone could think of something new. I've read around quite a bit and so far I have yet to see anything that looks both practical and untried.
Gee, it's almost like unfettered or barely regulated capitalism never delivers what people want, but instead tries to take whatever it possibly can by whatever means available.
Capitalism is essentially an interconnected system of optimizers, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to optimize for values you consider most important. Yes, it sucks, but everything else we've tried has sucked more.
I never said a word about BMI, that was your idea. I wasn't talking about carrying an extra pound or two, but people who are significantly overweight. Very Fat = Bad Health Outcomes
That's idiotic. Companies most certainly DO NOT exist "to produce profits".
Companies exist to make products or provide services. Profits are a side-effect that act as an incentive for people to form companies to provide products or services. The raison d'etre of a company is to PRODUCE something - the profits from efficient overproduction are just encouragement for those with the means to produce something of value to the rest of us.
That's silly, most investors would be perfectly happy with a company that made absolutely no products and provided no services as long as it was making an adequate return. Yes, as a society the reason we allow such activity is that it's generally beneficial to the rest of us but that's the side effect not the profits.
Sometimes some management forgets that employees are stakeholders just like the people who have invested their savings are.
They didn't forget, they just don't care. In buzzword lingo employees have low power or influence which means the recommended response, even in a company that practices stakeholder management, is to exert minimal effort consisting mostly of monitoring and informing.
Being obese is really bad for you, previously they showed that exercising was better than being fat. The new study just shows that lots of jogging in particular isn't necessarily better than being sedentary but normal sized. When you dig into the latest research this is obvious because steady state cardio with durations over 30 minutes and greater than 50% VO2 Max produces an unfavorable free testosterone to cortisol ratio. Exercise is still better than no exercise, just now we have yet another confirmation that some types are better than others. In this case, either do HIIT, keep your jogging under 30 minutes per session or substitute long walks instead. (assuming you want to stick with the same basic modality)
In order to lose weight, the most effective method is to control your calories.
In order to lose fat, the most effective method is a low carb diet that is also calorie controlled.
The problem is that neither of those is the real objective, which is to lose fat while retaining lean body mass. The answer to that is quite a bit more complicated. The shorthand version is you must eat correctly, workout properly and elicit the right hormone responses. Spelling out all the details would take a fairly large book.
These types of robots will never replace humans in the fast food industry because high school drop-outs and liberal arts masters grads will always be cheaper.
Humans have a minimum acceptable wage in that they require food to continue operation. If the cost of robots were to drop below the amount humans need for minimal survival then humans would be unable to compete since it would be impossible to drop their wage demands to match.
Slashdot Mirror
"Look at those evil Muslims killing innocent people to further their political goals! They are barbaric demonspawn! NUKE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST!"
That position is probably too extreme, at the very least we should consider using air bursts to minimize damage to the oil supply.
I'm not a fan of Fox news but in this case I think suppression of the video helps ISIS more than showing it. Suppression allows us to ignore the fact that they're a group with behaviors that don't belong in the civilized world, similar to the Nazis. Showing the video is distasteful, but if done on a opt-in basis it allows interested viewers to see their barbarity and develop an appropriate level of anger. Sure, some extremists may become motivated by what they see as strong action but the net effect will be negative as the broader population will be repulsed. You can see this playing out in Jordan right now.
You know, soldiers massacrating people (which is what war is, literally).
In military terms the word massacre has a specific meaning which is narrower than the sense you're using it in. The dictionary version is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", however the military version of the word involves a disparity of force. For example, using a machine gun to mow down unarmed POWs would be a massacre (not to mention a war crime), while using a machine gun to kill armed soldiers attacking your position would not. Killing all inhabitants of a besieged city would be a massacre, inflicting heavy casualties on the soldiers guarding a city prior to it's capture would not.
Why are we stuck in the "one car for every person" model of transportation?
Put simply, ride sharing sucks. The slightly longer answer is that commute time is heavily impacted when you introduce multiple pickup and drop off points to a vehicle route. If riding the bus was awesome then only poor people would drive while rich people would hog up all the mass transit.
Anecdotal example: My morning commute takes roughly 25 minutes door to door by car. I live in a city with excellent public transit and there is a bus stop within easy walking distance of my house. Commute time by bus would be roughly an hour and fifteen minutes door to door.
Too late, it's grown several orders of magnitude bigger in the time it took you to make this post.
Step 4, call sysadmin and complain about slowness of execution of new Java app running on hardware that was sized for C++ code.
Poor people obviously, they have less lobbyists.
Yes, that's the system we have now. It sucks but it's the best we've got so far. (There is some difference between an economics system and a political system but the line gets blurred in a hurry and it's usually not worth arguing about)
Sure, an easy example is High Frequency Trading. There are no customers only investors.
Fascism was plenty functional it's just that the world didn't particularly like the results. Of course since it was essentially a mixed economy much like we have today that's not surprising. Communism flat out doesn't work, human nature just doesn't mesh well with central planning.
There are essentially only three ways to divide up a scarce resource:
1) Even split
2) Decision by an authority
3) Some kind of points (endless ways to determine the points though)
Any economics system is going to be some combination of the above and none of them are completely fair.
Sounds great, now if only someone could think of something new. I've read around quite a bit and so far I have yet to see anything that looks both practical and untried.
Sounds like a great initiative petition.
Major difference there are no practical physical barriers to competition in the ISP space as exists with other utilities.
Really? So you have a choice of 30 competing ISPs in your area then? No?
Gee, it's almost like unfettered or barely regulated capitalism never delivers what people want, but instead tries to take whatever it possibly can by whatever means available.
Capitalism is essentially an interconnected system of optimizers, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to optimize for values you consider most important. Yes, it sucks, but everything else we've tried has sucked more.
I never said a word about BMI, that was your idea. I wasn't talking about carrying an extra pound or two, but people who are significantly overweight. Very Fat = Bad Health Outcomes
That's idiotic. Companies most certainly DO NOT exist "to produce profits".
Companies exist to make products or provide services. Profits are a side-effect that act as an incentive for people to form companies to provide products or services. The raison d'etre of a company is to PRODUCE something - the profits from efficient overproduction are just encouragement for those with the means to produce something of value to the rest of us.
That's silly, most investors would be perfectly happy with a company that made absolutely no products and provided no services as long as it was making an adequate return. Yes, as a society the reason we allow such activity is that it's generally beneficial to the rest of us but that's the side effect not the profits.
Sometimes some management forgets that employees are stakeholders just like the people who have invested their savings are.
They didn't forget, they just don't care. In buzzword lingo employees have low power or influence which means the recommended response, even in a company that practices stakeholder management, is to exert minimal effort consisting mostly of monitoring and informing.
Why can't we just age gracefully?
Why would we want that? Natural != Good I happen to like vaccinations, antibiotics, pain killers and other marvels of modern medicine, why don't you?
Being obese is really bad for you, previously they showed that exercising was better than being fat. The new study just shows that lots of jogging in particular isn't necessarily better than being sedentary but normal sized. When you dig into the latest research this is obvious because steady state cardio with durations over 30 minutes and greater than 50% VO2 Max produces an unfavorable free testosterone to cortisol ratio. Exercise is still better than no exercise, just now we have yet another confirmation that some types are better than others. In this case, either do HIIT, keep your jogging under 30 minutes per session or substitute long walks instead. (assuming you want to stick with the same basic modality)
In order to lose weight, the most effective method is to control your calories.
In order to lose fat, the most effective method is a low carb diet that is also calorie controlled.
The problem is that neither of those is the real objective, which is to lose fat while retaining lean body mass. The answer to that is quite a bit more complicated. The shorthand version is you must eat correctly, workout properly and elicit the right hormone responses. Spelling out all the details would take a fairly large book.
What next, systemd incorporates a mysql server?
How else would you properly store all your binary log files?
That seems to give us an optimum mix of the worst of both sides policies, I'm not sure I'd call that a good solution set.
These types of robots will never replace humans in the fast food industry because high school drop-outs and liberal arts masters grads will always be cheaper.
Humans have a minimum acceptable wage in that they require food to continue operation. If the cost of robots were to drop below the amount humans need for minimal survival then humans would be unable to compete since it would be impossible to drop their wage demands to match.
Okay, so Libertarians tend to attract all kinds of crazy, but not all of us are insane.
If you ever find a party for rational people let me know, the existing choices don't seem to cover that option.
You're opposed to energy efficiency? Even if you don't believe carbon release is a problem it's hard to argue that energy efficiency is a bad thing.