That's not democracy. Democracy requires that everyone have a meaningful (no matter how small in impact) vote, but that doesn't happen in the UK, a majority of the population have no effective vote. The UK's system is best described as elected dictatorship because a minority dictate to a majority, but are elected through an undemocratic system.
The issues you raise are problems with the voting system, but to my mind this doesn't mean the system as a whole is not democratic. Your power of representation is through your PM and councillors. So you have the potential to influence decisions by lobbying your representative. You can do that whether you voted for them or not. You're also free to run yourself as a local representative. It's things like this that create a democracy. I consider those avenues more powerful than voting from the perspective of a single individual. Consider it another way: even if the voting system was set up exactly as you would wish, if the candidates aren't meaningfully different then your vote also doesn't count for anything. It's also somewhat ironic that you're saying the UK is not democratic given today's startling demonstration that it is.:)
For the uninformed, the UK is undemocratic. We have a broken "first past the post" electoral system rather than some kind of proportional representation, which means that the government of the day is only voted for by a small minority but gets all the power. We also have a legion of unelected "peers"
Every democracy is different, there is no one way of doing it or one thing that defines a democracy. Are there things that could be better or fixed? Yes. Does this make it fundamentally undemocratic? No.
Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?
They raped them with the "bailouts" that are really loans to pay off loans that can't be paid back.
Integrated GPU just means that you'll be looking to upgrade your 5k monitor in a year or two.
Nope, no thank you apple.
For games, yes. But the purpose of the GPU in this case is mainly to handle the ridiculous number of pixels. So not the same scenario. You wouldn't buy this for gaming.
Is your 2010 laptop really faster than a modern one? I somehow doubt that. It will also have a lower res screen. Just what is worse in the current ones that stops you from upgrading?
I upgraded my seldom-used gaming and occasional-windows-tasks rig from Win 7 to Win 10. I've not signed up to any MS accounts. I've uninstalled all the MS stuff that I could. I opted out of everything I could find. The only annoying thing that's happened was a suggestion today on the Start Menu that I install the Facebook App. I disabled suggestions (either suggestions are a new feature, or it re-enabled itself). Some snooping stuff appears to be have been backported from 10 to 7 so I don't know if sticking to 7 will save you that much in that department.
So is there any point to Win 10? Have the virtual desktops built into the OS with a cludgy add-on program is nice. For some reason Cygwin install always failed for me on Win 10. I gave up because it's not worth the hassle right now. However, it seems that a native Bash terminal is about to appear in Windows 10, which is pretty awesome. The UI is oddly ugly. Other than that, I don't really notice any major differences between 7 and 10. But then, I don't use Windows heavily.
Pac-Man just eats and eats and never gains any weight. On top of that, all he eats are pills. So it promotes drug use. Are those pills certified organic or vegan? It doesn't say so, so they must not be. And we all know that anyone who eats meat is contributing more to global warming. So Pac-Man is a denier too. Anyone who isn't vegan also must be cruel to animals. I'm going to have to notify PETA as well.
I wouldn't bother, I'm sure all this has already occurred to them.
Seriously, I can't see how people would stomach paying more than $20-40 a year for unlimited, well curated music and music suggestions. The current Spotify and Pandora pay models are just stupid overpriced.
I pay it and it works for me. It makes it very easy to listen to whatever I want to without having to commit to buying the albums. If I had bought all of the albums that I have found on Spotify, I'd have spent more than the subscription fee. Plus, I've discovered whole music genres that I previously ignored. It's been great. I think of Spotify as the music version of Netflix.
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
The article isn't just about one specific ship, but this class of ships in general. i.e. that they are more polluting cars because they burn dirty fuel. So it's not really relevant if this ship is better or worse than the others. The point is that they're all bad.
I was recently in a poor and secluded village in China. They barely have education in this place and I met at least one youngish adult who couldn't read. Nonetheless, all of the kids (of about 10 years old) were out in the street in the evening interacting with their phones and not each other. The older generation said that a lot of the traditions of the village have been wiped out because of this. The kids no longer do what kids in that place used to do. This has, as you might imagine, happened more or less over night (although TV has played a role too, and that's been there for longer). Sad in a way.
In truth, they anti-vaxxers might be nutters, but that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong. There is reason to be cautious about over-vaccinating people, particularly for diseases that are extremely uncommon and/or for which the vaccine has a low rate of effectiveness, if only because of the slightly elevated cancer risk involved.
Oooh. Now that's a sentence with a lot of contentious statements.
These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.
Not necessarily. I used to have an anti-vaxxer neighbour. At one point he did biological research at a university (although I don't know how much he really absorbed) and he seemed in general to have a respect for science. Certainly wasn't obviously hostile to it. However, he didn't believe in vaccinations. He just didn't, I don't know why. At one point he gave me the low-down on "the facts". It was all fiction, of course. I just nodded and said "ah, right". No point engaging in a battle that can't be won.
You're right, they probably used the Chinese set... Whether or not the kid's theory holds, it's disgusting to see how people are most interested not in cultivating, fueling and encouraging this kid's passion, but rather in eviscerating him and his best efforts. Your toddler draws a picture of which she's very proud. It represents her best efforts and she's looking to you for praise and encouragement. Instead, you tell her it's rubbish, lecture her on her terrible technique, her poor choice of color pallet, etc..
That's not the correct analogy or the right response. This kid has (bravely) taken his ideas out into the real adult world to have them scrutinised. He's not playing and he's not a toddler. If his ideas are found wanting, the correct thing is not to pretend they are right but to explain why they are wrong. He'll learn.
The issue is that it can be perfectly healthy to eat around 900,000 calories a year, but if you eat just around 15,000 calorie per year too much, people gain 5 pound a year. That is less than 2% over target, but a weight gain of 5 pound per year, will easily cause significant issues in the long term. 15,000 calories a year is just 41 calories a day or about an half an apple every day.
Exactly. But given this, what's weird is that we don't all become fat and obesity is a recent problem. Nobody regulates their caloric to within a couple of percent. Even if you tried and read all the food labels, you couldn't do it because you can't measure with sufficient accuracy how much you burn (unless you live in one of those calorimeter rooms). I have been 61 kg +/- 2 kg for the last 15 years and I don't monitor what I eat or live by the scale. Clearly something is buffering my food intake to maintain this or it wouldn't be possible. It might be at the appetite level or it might be after that (more likely, I'm a fast eater). Either way, for many people it's the case that they are remarkably good at maintaining weight. Much better than they should be given the numbers you quote (which sound correct).
The BBC did a documentary on this topic a while ago. They tried to get thin people to put on weight and the results were slightly surprising: not all of them did, despite increasing their calorie intake greatly. Also, most or all lost the weight they put on after the experiment without any effort.
They call it "neuroscience" because people have figured out that psychology is bunk and the charlatans need a new name for their unsubstantiated hypthoses of how humans work.
That's not exactly fair: psychology is a broad discipline (not all of it is as you describe) and neuroscience is not a new name for psychology (although that may not be what you meant, I can also read your comment as meaning that charlatans attach themselves to neuroscience).
The obvious branch of psychology that is hard science is experimental psychology. Although I've never met anyone who describes themselves as such, there are still departments of experimental psychology.
The bulk of what neuroscience does is try to reveal how brains operate and how they are constructed or how they've evolved. Since we need to be very concrete in what we mean by "operate", much research in neuroscience ends up pretty far removed from what many lay people would consider informative in how humans work." As in "what it means to be human/conscious." For instance, neuroscientist Eric Kandel got the Nobel prize in 2000 for his work on the molecular aspects of simple learning in the sea slug, and in 2004 Richard Axel and Linda Buck got the prize for discovering how expression of olfactory receptor genes is organised in olfactory receptor neurons. This made clear how the olfactory receptor neurons are wired to their post-synaptic partner cells. All pretty low-level stuff.
As a neuroscientist, I always feel a bit bad when I see headlines like "neuroscience explains X". It usually doesn't and here also it doesn't really (although that's not say the work is without merit, the blurb in the summary seems reasonable). However, neuroscience obviously doesn't tell us why people are getting so fat in the first place. This matters because it affects how to handle weight loss. I accept that different people may have different "natural weights", but this doesn't explain the steadily increasing obesity levels. Something is clearly changing with our relationship to food. Maybe it's increasing sugar levels. Maybe it's that fewer people cook and that encourages over-eating. Maybe it's increasing portion sizes. Perhaps all of those. The point is that there is a driving force to increasing obesity in the population at large, and as an overweight individual you are fighting against it (whatever it is). So if you want people to start losing weight then I reckon you need to understand very well why they're gaining it at such unprecedented levels. The food industry is, in general, not helping to clarify the issue.
If you're an administrator, you will no longer be able to block Windows 10 Pro users on your watch from accessing the Windows Store.
Works just fine with some firewall rules on the core router in the office.
Even at the DNS level? Even you block it before it can enter the building? I know it's shit, but there must be a way of blocking it. Frankly, this seems like a bizarre move on their part. There must be enterprise scenarios where blocking the store is needed.
But can someone point to where he has done successful animal trials? Or even sliced and diced the same animal in order to reattach the spinal cord? Or Froze and un-froze an animal head?
Until the parts are tested, colour me skeptical
I think you're right. I'm not sure there are any case where a spinal cord has been re-attached and become functional again. However, the head-swapping has been done in monkeys in the past. So that part at least is feasible. Then the patient will have a donor body acting as a life-support for the head. I find that somewhat disturbing, I must say.
This has been the case in Switzerlandfor some time. You get them when you first move to a "danger area". Then you rapidly forget where you've put them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not democracy. Democracy requires that everyone have a meaningful (no matter how small in impact) vote, but that doesn't happen in the UK, a majority of the population have no effective vote. The UK's system is best described as elected dictatorship because a minority dictate to a majority, but are elected through an undemocratic system.
The issues you raise are problems with the voting system, but to my mind this doesn't mean the system as a whole is not democratic. Your power of representation is through your PM and councillors. So you have the potential to influence decisions by lobbying your representative. You can do that whether you voted for them or not. You're also free to run yourself as a local representative. It's things like this that create a democracy. I consider those avenues more powerful than voting from the perspective of a single individual. Consider it another way: even if the voting system was set up exactly as you would wish, if the candidates aren't meaningfully different then your vote also doesn't count for anything. It's also somewhat ironic that you're saying the UK is not democratic given today's startling demonstration that it is. :)
And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up
This is an acute reaction to the vote. Like the markets going down. It'll all settle down and go back up soon.
For the uninformed, the UK is undemocratic. We have a broken "first past the post" electoral system rather than some kind of proportional representation, which means that the government of the day is only voted for by a small minority but gets all the power. We also have a legion of unelected "peers"
Every democracy is different, there is no one way of doing it or one thing that defines a democracy. Are there things that could be better or fixed? Yes. Does this make it fundamentally undemocratic? No.
Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?
They raped them with the "bailouts" that are really loans to pay off loans that can't be paid back.
What's stopping a third party from making a Lightening to audio jack cable? Thus (again) allowing any headphone to work with the device.
It's about 37 times further away than the moon. Pretty far away in other words.
Wonder if it would be a candidate for the first asteroid mining venture?
There will be no asteroid mining. It's never going to be cost effective.
Integrated GPU just means that you'll be looking to upgrade your 5k monitor in a year or two. Nope, no thank you apple.
For games, yes. But the purpose of the GPU in this case is mainly to handle the ridiculous number of pixels. So not the same scenario. You wouldn't buy this for gaming.
Is your 2010 laptop really faster than a modern one? I somehow doubt that. It will also have a lower res screen. Just what is worse in the current ones that stops you from upgrading?
I upgraded my seldom-used gaming and occasional-windows-tasks rig from Win 7 to Win 10. I've not signed up to any MS accounts. I've uninstalled all the MS stuff that I could. I opted out of everything I could find. The only annoying thing that's happened was a suggestion today on the Start Menu that I install the Facebook App. I disabled suggestions (either suggestions are a new feature, or it re-enabled itself). Some snooping stuff appears to be have been backported from 10 to 7 so I don't know if sticking to 7 will save you that much in that department.
So is there any point to Win 10? Have the virtual desktops built into the OS with a cludgy add-on program is nice. For some reason Cygwin install always failed for me on Win 10. I gave up because it's not worth the hassle right now. However, it seems that a native Bash terminal is about to appear in Windows 10, which is pretty awesome. The UI is oddly ugly. Other than that, I don't really notice any major differences between 7 and 10. But then, I don't use Windows heavily.
Don't like Windows? Don't use it. Done.
Some of us have to. I hate the thing but I work with certain hardware/software combinations for which Windows is still the only option.
Yeah, you're right. But that's a problem throughout the industry isn't it?
Pac-Man just eats and eats and never gains any weight. On top of that, all he eats are pills. So it promotes drug use. Are those pills certified organic or vegan? It doesn't say so, so they must not be. And we all know that anyone who eats meat is contributing more to global warming. So Pac-Man is a denier too. Anyone who isn't vegan also must be cruel to animals. I'm going to have to notify PETA as well.
I wouldn't bother, I'm sure all this has already occurred to them.
Seriously, I can't see how people would stomach paying more than $20-40 a year for unlimited, well curated music and music suggestions. The current Spotify and Pandora pay models are just stupid overpriced.
I pay it and it works for me. It makes it very easy to listen to whatever I want to without having to commit to buying the albums. If I had bought all of the albums that I have found on Spotify, I'd have spent more than the subscription fee. Plus, I've discovered whole music genres that I previously ignored. It's been great. I think of Spotify as the music version of Netflix.
I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
The article isn't just about one specific ship, but this class of ships in general. i.e. that they are more polluting cars because they burn dirty fuel. So it's not really relevant if this ship is better or worse than the others. The point is that they're all bad.
I was recently in a poor and secluded village in China. They barely have education in this place and I met at least one youngish adult who couldn't read. Nonetheless, all of the kids (of about 10 years old) were out in the street in the evening interacting with their phones and not each other. The older generation said that a lot of the traditions of the village have been wiped out because of this. The kids no longer do what kids in that place used to do. This has, as you might imagine, happened more or less over night (although TV has played a role too, and that's been there for longer). Sad in a way.
In truth, they anti-vaxxers might be nutters, but that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong. There is reason to be cautious about over-vaccinating people, particularly for diseases that are extremely uncommon and/or for which the vaccine has a low rate of effectiveness, if only because of the slightly elevated cancer risk involved.
Oooh. Now that's a sentence with a lot of contentious statements.
These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.
Not necessarily. I used to have an anti-vaxxer neighbour. At one point he did biological research at a university (although I don't know how much he really absorbed) and he seemed in general to have a respect for science. Certainly wasn't obviously hostile to it. However, he didn't believe in vaccinations. He just didn't, I don't know why. At one point he gave me the low-down on "the facts". It was all fiction, of course. I just nodded and said "ah, right". No point engaging in a battle that can't be won.
You're right, they probably used the Chinese set... Whether or not the kid's theory holds, it's disgusting to see how people are most interested not in cultivating, fueling and encouraging this kid's passion, but rather in eviscerating him and his best efforts. Your toddler draws a picture of which she's very proud. It represents her best efforts and she's looking to you for praise and encouragement. Instead, you tell her it's rubbish, lecture her on her terrible technique, her poor choice of color pallet, etc..
That's not the correct analogy or the right response. This kid has (bravely) taken his ideas out into the real adult world to have them scrutinised. He's not playing and he's not a toddler. If his ideas are found wanting, the correct thing is not to pretend they are right but to explain why they are wrong. He'll learn.
The issue is that it can be perfectly healthy to eat around 900,000 calories a year, but if you eat just around 15,000 calorie per year too much, people gain 5 pound a year. That is less than 2% over target, but a weight gain of 5 pound per year, will easily cause significant issues in the long term. 15,000 calories a year is just 41 calories a day or about an half an apple every day.
Exactly. But given this, what's weird is that we don't all become fat and obesity is a recent problem. Nobody regulates their caloric to within a couple of percent. Even if you tried and read all the food labels, you couldn't do it because you can't measure with sufficient accuracy how much you burn (unless you live in one of those calorimeter rooms). I have been 61 kg +/- 2 kg for the last 15 years and I don't monitor what I eat or live by the scale. Clearly something is buffering my food intake to maintain this or it wouldn't be possible. It might be at the appetite level or it might be after that (more likely, I'm a fast eater). Either way, for many people it's the case that they are remarkably good at maintaining weight. Much better than they should be given the numbers you quote (which sound correct).
The BBC did a documentary on this topic a while ago. They tried to get thin people to put on weight and the results were slightly surprising: not all of them did, despite increasing their calorie intake greatly. Also, most or all lost the weight they put on after the experiment without any effort.
They call it "neuroscience" because people have figured out that psychology is bunk and the charlatans need a new name for their unsubstantiated hypthoses of how humans work.
That's not exactly fair: psychology is a broad discipline (not all of it is as you describe) and neuroscience is not a new name for psychology (although that may not be what you meant, I can also read your comment as meaning that charlatans attach themselves to neuroscience).
The obvious branch of psychology that is hard science is experimental psychology. Although I've never met anyone who describes themselves as such, there are still departments of experimental psychology.
The bulk of what neuroscience does is try to reveal how brains operate and how they are constructed or how they've evolved. Since we need to be very concrete in what we mean by "operate", much research in neuroscience ends up pretty far removed from what many lay people would consider informative in how humans work." As in "what it means to be human/conscious." For instance, neuroscientist Eric Kandel got the Nobel prize in 2000 for his work on the molecular aspects of simple learning in the sea slug, and in 2004 Richard Axel and Linda Buck got the prize for discovering how expression of olfactory receptor genes is organised in olfactory receptor neurons. This made clear how the olfactory receptor neurons are wired to their post-synaptic partner cells. All pretty low-level stuff.
As a neuroscientist, I always feel a bit bad when I see headlines like "neuroscience explains X". It usually doesn't and here also it doesn't really (although that's not say the work is without merit, the blurb in the summary seems reasonable). However, neuroscience obviously doesn't tell us why people are getting so fat in the first place. This matters because it affects how to handle weight loss. I accept that different people may have different "natural weights", but this doesn't explain the steadily increasing obesity levels. Something is clearly changing with our relationship to food. Maybe it's increasing sugar levels. Maybe it's that fewer people cook and that encourages over-eating. Maybe it's increasing portion sizes. Perhaps all of those. The point is that there is a driving force to increasing obesity in the population at large, and as an overweight individual you are fighting against it (whatever it is). So if you want people to start losing weight then I reckon you need to understand very well why they're gaining it at such unprecedented levels. The food industry is, in general, not helping to clarify the issue.
If you're an administrator, you will no longer be able to block Windows 10 Pro users on your watch from accessing the Windows Store.
Works just fine with some firewall rules on the core router in the office.
Even at the DNS level? Even you block it before it can enter the building? I know it's shit, but there must be a way of blocking it. Frankly, this seems like a bizarre move on their part. There must be enterprise scenarios where blocking the store is needed.
Or the washing machine. Big contributor for allowing women to enter the workplace.
Yep body transplant.
But can someone point to where he has done successful animal trials? Or even sliced and diced the same animal in order to reattach the spinal cord? Or Froze and un-froze an animal head?
Until the parts are tested, colour me skeptical
I think you're right. I'm not sure there are any case where a spinal cord has been re-attached and become functional again. However, the head-swapping has been done in monkeys in the past. So that part at least is feasible. Then the patient will have a donor body acting as a life-support for the head. I find that somewhat disturbing, I must say.
This has been the case in Switzerland for some time. You get them when you first move to a "danger area". Then you rapidly forget where you've put them.