HIV is highly communicable under certain circumstances.
If you are referring to the circumstance where someone puts their penis in someone else's body cavity, then yes you're right. But rather than publishing the name of everyone who has been tested positive (which wouldn't reveal the names of any one who HASN'T been tested), why don't you and your latest partner get tested before having sex? If that's too much hassle, then you (or anyone else) are part of the problem - you could be spreading HIV now.
Having a registry of people infected with HIV would allow people to avoid the type of contact that can spread HIV with infected persons.
Once people know that HIV test results are public record, they will choose to not get tested.
Agree. I have a video baby monitor and I don't really care if it's secure because the odds of someone targeting my wifi network and camera feed are low, and the impact of such a thing happening is negligible. While a few monitors have been hacked, this is not presently an issue of thousands of creepers hacking every cam they can find - we are talking about several isolated incidents. I am FAR more concerned about someone breaking into my house and being some kind of actual threat to my family, and even then I don't bother to have a functioning alarm system.
It is surprising that there are not MORE suicides correlated with that list, just based on general suicide statistics.
- General US suicide rate for men is 19.4 per 100,000 per year. (wiki)
- If there were 31,000,000 men on AM, let's assume a quarter are in the US, so 7,750,000.
- Based on the above suicide rate, one could expect 1503 suicides from that group within a year. That is 4.1 suicides per day.
People have discovered that 3 different people from the group committed suicide since it was dumped. Statistically there should be at least another dozen or two.
I am not a statistician, feel free to correct my math/assumptions.
Hmm, I had posted a reply yesterday but it didn't seem to go through.
I am not condoning people having affairs, nor am I arguing it is somehow beneficial to society for people to do so. Seriously, just because I disagree with the poster's stance doesn't mean I take the extreme opposite stance. The puritan view I am against is the belief that every profile on AM is someone who deserves to be ostracized because they are having sex or trying to have sex outside their marriage. I very much expect that significant number of users are probably just on there to fantasize about the possibilities, maybe even going so far as to have some explicit online chat. If that's breaking promises then watching porn by yourself shouldn't be far behind (I'll admit I may have a vested interest in considering watching porn as not cheating). Would I be upset if I found my wife having an explicit chat? Maybe. Probably moreso that she didn't tell me about her interest. Would the general population feel that is cheating? I don't know, but I don't expect everyone to have the same values as I do. I do expect my wife not to have sex with others without my consent (not that I would necessarily ever give it), but her having on account on the site doesn't mean she's having sex, it just means we need to talk. Personally I have 3 fake profiles on the site, that I made with my wife, because we were curious about what was on there when we first saw an ad - 3 because every time we went back we forgot the credentials. I did use an old personal email address to do it though, and I have no doubt if anyone I knew actually knew the address many would assume I was out there having affairs and I should probably lose my job and my kids and burn in hell, etc.
So again, I do agree that it is a "puritanical glee" with which people are condemning all entries in the database. AM's marketing is irrelevant too - just because their ads may encourage specifically going out and having sex, doesn't automatically mean every member, or even most, has done anything other than make an account to see what there is to see.
(off-topic) I worked at a bookstore briefly and I remember the first and only time I had to do the cover-ripping thing for inventory return. It felt awful to destroy a book like that.
ABS can fail in dangerous ways in my (anecdotal) experience. My first and only car has a failed ABS system, apparently from salt wearing away at the poorly designed connectors (2007 Yaris). In addition to slippery situations, the ABS would partially engage when braking if I happened to go over a sewer cover or a minor pot hole. In all situations it wouldn't properly engage though, so any time it activated it just reduced my braking to about 20% effectiveness. In was very unpredictable. I am a careful driver and this usually only happened when slowing down for a red light in snowy conditions - however the stopping distance with and without ABS was like 40ft versus 10 ft. It was like this when I purchased it, but having no experience with ABS I just assumed that was what ABS did. I asked people and they would just say that yeah, that's how ABS works - less power but more traction. One particularly bad winter it happened often enough that I feared driving with any snow on the ground, so I pulled the fuse to disable it. I brought it to the service shop and asked the techs to look at it - yeah it was a common problem with this model in Canada, but there was no recall. $1200 to fix but would probably fail again after a few winters. I left the fuse out and never looked back.
I personally don't care about the whole manliness thing, but I sure as hell feel safer with my ABS is disabled. Knowing that it can fail like that leaves me with very little trust for it in general.
And a shame she didn't operate in the same role in Canada - one of the countries that licensed it for prescription use and also the very last country to stop selling it.
The article says the data will be combined with data from the EPA's stationary sensors, but I'm not sure how a one-time drive-by reading, taken at different times in different locations, could be useful compared to a long term data set.
The information comes up on the original web site that published the article. That web site, according to its robots.txt file, allows that page to be indexed by search engines. Either remove the data at the source, or properly identify it as being unindexable. This law is being applied to the wrong company.
The "parent with extra crap" stuff is actually easy to solve. Just get a large duffle bag with all the stuff and throw it in the trunk when the car shows up
This is what my wife and I do for our 10 month old. All of his stuff is in a large carry bag. Occasionally we have to add the stroller, but generally it is all taken out when we're at home. Of course, we only have one small car, and it would be a hindrance to leave things in it. I'd like to think we would do the same if we had a larger vehicle.
They also fail to hit on the idea that gas stations might just become smaller to remain profitable, and they also might spring up as add-ons to existing businesses. Most hardware stores in my area have small propane service outlets. Likely we would see similar things for gas, tacked onto the sides of businesses, or even in the corners of a parking lot.
Or you could just install the older "Messaging" application and switch the default messaging app. I bought a new phone last week and it asked me when initializing to confirm Hangouts as the default messaging app. I didn't really know much about Hangouts - I tried it, it was terrible, so I quickly got the older "Messaging" app from the play store and updated the settings. Very easy to do. I assume you can still be attacked by getting a Hangout message, but I assume that requires more knowledge about your target than just their phone number.
+1. But they don't want to end Google. The internet is too open and some other start up would take their place. More likely they want control, via established legal mechanisms they can use to modify Google search results, which in some areas they are already achieving (DMCA, right to be forgotten, think of the children, etc).
Subject A: my bones grow too much!
Subject B: my bones don't grow enough!
Researchers: Hmm, I wonder if we can find out what causes A and apply it to B?
People paying for fancy cars is a tax on stupidity because I personally can't see the value of it. People paying to see a play is a tax on stupidity because I wouldn't enjoy it myself. Paying any money at all for a coffee is a tax on stupidity because I hate coffee. Everything you do for enjoyment that I wouldn't personally enjoy doing is a tax on stupidity.
If you don't get any enjoyment from it, don't do it. Other people enjoy it, which is obvious, so why be a prick about it? Very, very few people buy lottery tickets as a financial strategy, so the actual odds are irrelevant as long as it's run honestly and someone shows up in the news with a win occasionally. Personally I spend about $10 per month on lotto tickets. I enjoy it, it's fun for me, so fuck off with your judgmental generalization.
but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.
While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowed to be gender-biased due to societal concerns, such restrictions by themselves would not make these statistics even.
Slashdot Mirror
HIV is highly communicable under certain circumstances.
If you are referring to the circumstance where someone puts their penis in someone else's body cavity, then yes you're right. But rather than publishing the name of everyone who has been tested positive (which wouldn't reveal the names of any one who HASN'T been tested), why don't you and your latest partner get tested before having sex? If that's too much hassle, then you (or anyone else) are part of the problem - you could be spreading HIV now.
Having a registry of people infected with HIV would allow people to avoid the type of contact that can spread HIV with infected persons.
Once people know that HIV test results are public record, they will choose to not get tested.
People don't buy baby monitors for security.
Agree. I have a video baby monitor and I don't really care if it's secure because the odds of someone targeting my wifi network and camera feed are low, and the impact of such a thing happening is negligible. While a few monitors have been hacked, this is not presently an issue of thousands of creepers hacking every cam they can find - we are talking about several isolated incidents. I am FAR more concerned about someone breaking into my house and being some kind of actual threat to my family, and even then I don't bother to have a functioning alarm system.
+10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is surprising that there are not MORE suicides correlated with that list, just based on general suicide statistics.
- General US suicide rate for men is 19.4 per 100,000 per year. (wiki)
- If there were 31,000,000 men on AM, let's assume a quarter are in the US, so 7,750,000.
- Based on the above suicide rate, one could expect 1503 suicides from that group within a year. That is 4.1 suicides per day.
People have discovered that 3 different people from the group committed suicide since it was dumped. Statistically there should be at least another dozen or two.
I am not a statistician, feel free to correct my math/assumptions.
Hmm, I had posted a reply yesterday but it didn't seem to go through.
I am not condoning people having affairs, nor am I arguing it is somehow beneficial to society for people to do so. Seriously, just because I disagree with the poster's stance doesn't mean I take the extreme opposite stance. The puritan view I am against is the belief that every profile on AM is someone who deserves to be ostracized because they are having sex or trying to have sex outside their marriage. I very much expect that significant number of users are probably just on there to fantasize about the possibilities, maybe even going so far as to have some explicit online chat. If that's breaking promises then watching porn by yourself shouldn't be far behind (I'll admit I may have a vested interest in considering watching porn as not cheating). Would I be upset if I found my wife having an explicit chat? Maybe. Probably moreso that she didn't tell me about her interest. Would the general population feel that is cheating? I don't know, but I don't expect everyone to have the same values as I do. I do expect my wife not to have sex with others without my consent (not that I would necessarily ever give it), but her having on account on the site doesn't mean she's having sex, it just means we need to talk. Personally I have 3 fake profiles on the site, that I made with my wife, because we were curious about what was on there when we first saw an ad - 3 because every time we went back we forgot the credentials. I did use an old personal email address to do it though, and I have no doubt if anyone I knew actually knew the address many would assume I was out there having affairs and I should probably lose my job and my kids and burn in hell, etc.
So again, I do agree that it is a "puritanical glee" with which people are condemning all entries in the database. AM's marketing is irrelevant too - just because their ads may encourage specifically going out and having sex, doesn't automatically mean every member, or even most, has done anything other than make an account to see what there is to see.
No, it's puritanism. Your response offering only black and white alternatives just reinforces that argument.
(off-topic) I worked at a bookstore briefly and I remember the first and only time I had to do the cover-ripping thing for inventory return. It felt awful to destroy a book like that.
ABS can fail in dangerous ways in my (anecdotal) experience. My first and only car has a failed ABS system, apparently from salt wearing away at the poorly designed connectors (2007 Yaris). In addition to slippery situations, the ABS would partially engage when braking if I happened to go over a sewer cover or a minor pot hole. In all situations it wouldn't properly engage though, so any time it activated it just reduced my braking to about 20% effectiveness. In was very unpredictable. I am a careful driver and this usually only happened when slowing down for a red light in snowy conditions - however the stopping distance with and without ABS was like 40ft versus 10 ft. It was like this when I purchased it, but having no experience with ABS I just assumed that was what ABS did. I asked people and they would just say that yeah, that's how ABS works - less power but more traction. One particularly bad winter it happened often enough that I feared driving with any snow on the ground, so I pulled the fuse to disable it. I brought it to the service shop and asked the techs to look at it - yeah it was a common problem with this model in Canada, but there was no recall. $1200 to fix but would probably fail again after a few winters. I left the fuse out and never looked back.
I personally don't care about the whole manliness thing, but I sure as hell feel safer with my ABS is disabled. Knowing that it can fail like that leaves me with very little trust for it in general.
And a shame she didn't operate in the same role in Canada - one of the countries that licensed it for prescription use and also the very last country to stop selling it.
ugh... formatting... it's too early.
Step 1: false flag operation to make it appear that a foreign competitor is attacking you Step 2: counter attack Step 3: competitor disabled, profit!
The article says the data will be combined with data from the EPA's stationary sensors, but I'm not sure how a one-time drive-by reading, taken at different times in different locations, could be useful compared to a long term data set.
The information comes up on the original web site that published the article. That web site, according to its robots.txt file, allows that page to be indexed by search engines. Either remove the data at the source, or properly identify it as being unindexable. This law is being applied to the wrong company.
The "parent with extra crap" stuff is actually easy to solve. Just get a large duffle bag with all the stuff and throw it in the trunk when the car shows up
This is what my wife and I do for our 10 month old. All of his stuff is in a large carry bag. Occasionally we have to add the stroller, but generally it is all taken out when we're at home. Of course, we only have one small car, and it would be a hindrance to leave things in it. I'd like to think we would do the same if we had a larger vehicle.
They also fail to hit on the idea that gas stations might just become smaller to remain profitable, and they also might spring up as add-ons to existing businesses. Most hardware stores in my area have small propane service outlets. Likely we would see similar things for gas, tacked onto the sides of businesses, or even in the corners of a parking lot.
He's lying every time he shows his hair in public.
it is refreshing to have someone that doesn't... lie to voters
A. A ha. A ha ha ha. A ha ha ha ha hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha... ha ha... ha... what?
in the UK, the figures show that unvaccinated kids visit the doctor a *lot* less than vaccinated kids
Tell me about it! My infant son has been to the doctor 4 times this year just to get his vaccination shots.
Or you could just install the older "Messaging" application and switch the default messaging app. I bought a new phone last week and it asked me when initializing to confirm Hangouts as the default messaging app. I didn't really know much about Hangouts - I tried it, it was terrible, so I quickly got the older "Messaging" app from the play store and updated the settings. Very easy to do. I assume you can still be attacked by getting a Hangout message, but I assume that requires more knowledge about your target than just their phone number.
+1. But they don't want to end Google. The internet is too open and some other start up would take their place. More likely they want control, via established legal mechanisms they can use to modify Google search results, which in some areas they are already achieving (DMCA, right to be forgotten, think of the children, etc).
That's either really lame or I don't get it. I suspect it's really lame.
Seems rather obvious now that they point it out!
Subject A: my bones grow too much!
Subject B: my bones don't grow enough!
Researchers: Hmm, I wonder if we can find out what causes A and apply it to B?
Lotteries are a tax on stupidity.
People paying for fancy cars is a tax on stupidity because I personally can't see the value of it. People paying to see a play is a tax on stupidity because I wouldn't enjoy it myself. Paying any money at all for a coffee is a tax on stupidity because I hate coffee. Everything you do for enjoyment that I wouldn't personally enjoy doing is a tax on stupidity.
If you don't get any enjoyment from it, don't do it. Other people enjoy it, which is obvious, so why be a prick about it? Very, very few people buy lottery tickets as a financial strategy, so the actual odds are irrelevant as long as it's run honestly and someone shows up in the news with a win occasionally. Personally I spend about $10 per month on lotto tickets. I enjoy it, it's fun for me, so fuck off with your judgmental generalization.
but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.
While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowed to be gender-biased due to societal concerns, such restrictions by themselves would not make these statistics even.
Sigh. I've never even watched the films. Now my feed is full of people tweeting me about skynet.