Austerity didn't get them into trouble. Spending like there was no limit got them into trouble. Apparently the solution when you've got too much debt is to spend more!
It wasn't spending that got Greece into trouble: it was corruption and wastage surrounding borrowed money. They didn't invest the original loans in ways that would create a return that could be used to both grow the country and pay back the loans. Instead it was burned on crony capitalism and stolen by corrupt politicians. TBH, I feel those who are responsible should be prosecuted for treason.
Microsoft's last-ditch solution is to try to get their few remaining hostages and fanboys to not only pay for MS software, but to keep paying again and again every month.
Most of history was a worst time to be alive than right now, for the average person at least. It just somehow always seems to be fashionable to claim that "things were always better in the good ole days". It's just stupid cliche' bullshit from entitled brats.
One form of depression comes from low serotonin.
I think this increasingly being questioned. example. I didn't read that particular lilnk, but there are lots of others like it.
This just takes the price for least informative summary ever. So a new cancer drug has effects. Ok great, every day we see these trials and most have at least some effect. Only in the last sentence is desribed why this particular trial is worth mentioning.
The summary says "The therapy involves genetically engineered T cells, targeted to the solid tumors using the MAGE-A3 protein as a unique marker expressed in up to 30 percent of cancers." Seems pretty informative to me.
It's a shame you didn't read the study because it addresses your point. By "phased out" they mean all new vehicles would be electric, with a few exceptions. It's like CFCs were phased out - they didn't force everyone to replace hold fridges.
TFA seems to be saying that switching quickly is a possibility, but there's nothing plausible to switch to right now. Planes and shipping aren't going to be EV and of course we need a solution to energy production. We have to shift to something with sufficient capacity and it's currently really unclear what that something is.
I work at a place that distributes medical supplies and one of the things we sell is 'skin markers', just small markers to write things like "THIS ARM" on patients before operations. It was such a problem that they actually had to come up with a solution for it to stop happening!
You phrase it ("such a problem") as though it would need to happen very regularly for solution like stickers to be needed. " I doubt this is so. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but there are huge numbers of operations taking place every year and these and other errors will occur. The point is that if it happens at all (even once a year) then it's a problem. It doesn't need to be often. So a simple solution to prevent surgeons working on the wrong organ or limb is a very good idea. This can be as simple as a placing a mark on the patient's body with a pen.
China's reported goal here is to "collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur." The goal of the Patriot act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". They key word being "intercept", which they were seeking to achieve by large-scale monitoring of communications. I'm sure the US would have tried to collate these data to predict who is a threat.
TBH, we already have high bandwidth interfaces. You can implant electrodes and relay the signals with a cable. The problem isn't so much the interface but the recording itself. Recording from vast numbers of neurons with high resolution (i.e. single cell resolution) is just too invasive: it means inserting very large numbers of electrodes deep into the tissue. The only point of a high-bandwidth interface is to relay data from vast numbers of electrodes and any time you do that it's going to be invasive. There are tricks people are playing with now to make this less invasive (e.g. multiplexing signals so you don't need one wire per electrode) but invasiveness is still a problem and this stuff about soldiers and drones is pure SciFi.
In all seriousness: probably because his benchmark programs don't measure reliability. This guy benchmarks stuff. A lot of stuff. He knows how to do it. This time he's benchmarked a bunch of Linux installs. We learn a little, but not so much. Yes, there are some big differences (like the disk performance going down). But often it's not clear why any of that stuff happened. So not very informative, to be honest.
If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.
Probably not, as The Fine Article states near the top: "... installed a camera on his roof and began writing speed-monitoring software after a 12-year-old pedestrian was injured by a car last October."
People and their opinions have a huge influence on politics. Feeling as I do about abortion I almost never vote for a pro abortion candidate.
I'm really interested in in this. I understand that you can't vote against your conscience, so do you think you are put in a difficult position when it comes to voting? Do you sometimes feel you agree with a certain candidate, but because they are pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion) you can't vote for them? Is that the position you feel in with Sanders (if you don't mind my asking)?
You're right that people and their opinions influence politics. Of course that is true. My problem is that abortion (whilst an important ethical issue) shouldn't be swaying people's voting choices about how the country is run. It's just a different category of issue to things like inequality, foreign policy (e.g. stance on Iran or Israel or terror), how to regulate Wall Street, prisons for profit, or the war on drugs. In an ideal world, everyone can disagree about all that other stuff but get together and come up with some compromise on abortion. My hunch is that it's in the interests of the politicians for that not to happen. What do you think?
You sound like a reasonable person and I respect your views. It's nice to discuss with a anti-abortionist who doesn't make knee-jerk statements. I agree it's not good to use abortion as retroactive birth control. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't consider "where human life begins" to be a useful yardstick in the debate. Neither do I think it's self-evident that "life" begins at birth or even that "life" is a very useful word in this debate.
I don't think saying "life begins at conception" is that helpful because, apart from anything else, about 25% of conceptions end up as miscarriages. So biology itself is telling us that conception is far from a assurance of an eventual new organism. Perhaps because I'm a biologist I see the word "life" very mechanistically and I don't understand how it relates to abortion, which is an ethical issue. I see when the fetus starts to feel pain as relevant, for instance. But at which point it is "alive" just isn't useful to me because that word encompasses far too many things and states of being.
I think it's too black and white and too easy to say conception==life and therefore life==human being and therefore abortion==killing. I see a human embryo is a potential new human existence (I'll avoid the word "life"). However, what it actually is at the time of abortion is anything from an undifferentiated ball of cells ball of cells to a highly undeveloped embryo that has nothing in common with a person. So when I think about this issue I think about it in terms of what the embryo currently is, not what it might become. I don't see it as "killing a person" or "taking a human life" I see it "as removing a ball of cells" or "removing an embryo that is currently indistinguishable from a chicken embryo". Of course later term abortions begin to become very unpleasant and there would come a stage in pregnancy where I'd probably be averse to abortion for anything but health reasons. I don't have an opinion as to where that line is, though.
In any case, my main point is that none of the above should be a major influence on politics.
Appears debatable. He seems to me to have been acquited. What you're describing appear to be a contempt of court citation which led to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, which had certain other ramifications.
I don't think it is slaughter. I think "slaughter" is an emotive term designed to polarize people's views. Further, it's a term that references the slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament, making it harder for religious people not to oppose the issue.
I just can't see early term abortions as being anything other than the removal of an embryo. A potential human. Calling it murder seems very unreasonable. Anything in the first trimester seems like a non-issue to me. My wife is 8 weeks pregnant and if the 12 week scans and tests indicate Down's then we're having an abortion. I'll be disappointed, and worried for my wife's health, but I (we) have no qualms whatsoever about terminating it. I certainly won't feel like a killer.
I think the real concern is that abortion is illegal in about half of US states regardless of whether there is risk to the mother or the baby was the product of rape. That is unreasonable.
I don't know at what point I'd consider abortion the taking of a life. Probably by the third trimester. I don't have a fixed cut off in my head. I think it would depend on the reason. Also, by the third trimester there's the option of a premature delivery in the event of potential medical complications for the mother. So the issue is inherently a grey area.
I dispute the disagreement with Planned Parenthood's abortion efforts being religious only. You don't have to believe in God to oppose the slaughter of the unborn. Sure the churches are the loudest voices but I know plenty of non-believers who oppose abortion. Just because "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the 10 commandments from the bible doesn't invalidate it for most people.
The disagreement is mainly of religious origin; maybe not completely, but mostly. I think most non-religious people see things in a more fine-grained manner. In particular, I find phrases such as "the slaughter of the unborn" to be wildly over the top with respect to very early term abortions.
I don't think he's being an apologist. He's saying that we need more details to discover who was colluding in the scheme. He's also saying that it's not the private server that was the problem, but that fact that e-mails themselves were likely systematically being treated in an insecure manner (probably by many people).
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock. The e-mail scandal, on the other hand, is a big problem.
I don't know what is " turbo-liberal" about Planned Parenthood: it's an organization that provides health services. Some people disagree with some of those services on religious grounds. The resulting debate is given far too much importance on the National political stage. In reality, the issue is used as a tool to divide the electorate and everyone seems to fall for it.
I don't much like Hilary, but I like less silly ad hominem like saying "incontrovertible proof of mental illness", which just lower the standard of discourse and contribute nothing.
I agree you have a use-case that needs greater bandwidth. However, for people surfing the web and watching a few movies then 20 Mbit is fine. This must cover most people. I have a 1 Gbit connection at work (which I need) but at home I was on 20 Mbit until November when they bumped me up to 40 Mbit for free. I've never had trouble with 20 Mbit, even though I know how fast a 1 Gbit connection feels.
You know what? Freedom of speech is there to protect important stuff, not bullshit like this. There is no absolute freedom of speech because there are already several forms of speech that, as a society, we deem illegal. So if a court decides that a vendor encouraging people to advertise for them for free is spamming, then I'm happy to take that in the spirit in which it is intended and not debase the important right to freedom of speech to defend Amazon. Where your rights are actually being eroded is by things such as "companies are people and are entitled to freedom of speech". That kind of thing concentrates power in the hands of the few whilst masquerading as democracy.
The great thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe in. If you don't believe in gravity and jump off of a tall building, you will still splatter when you hit the ground. By the way, there is no such thing as anti-science, only pro-ignorance. Let's call it for what it really is.
I don't agree. Ignorance isn't the same thing as science. Ignorance measures the level of knowledge you have on a topic. Whereas science isn't so much about the facts, but is a system for interrogating the world and determining what is true to the best of our abilities. Science is about gathering and evaluating evidence.
I agree that creationists are ignorant. But the main thing they're ignorant about is how science works. Their stance is anti-science because they are promoting creationism as a viable alternative to evolution, whilst being unwilling to understand how our evidence for evolution arises or even the difference between a theory and an idea. Creationists are anti-science because they inappropriately use sciency-sounding terminology to sow confusion and misunderstanding. They are also anti-science because their own ideas are not testable and exhibit serious logical flaws that they ignore. None of this is ignorance: it's a systematic effort to deceive, which is much worse.
This has certainly been my (limited) experience with Linux on Apple laptops. I've had annoying touchpad behavior and random failure to enter suspend on lid close (about 1% to 5% of the time). Twice I put the machine in my bag and pulled it out very hot because it failed to suspend.
Slashdot Mirror
Austerity didn't get them into trouble. Spending like there was no limit got them into trouble. Apparently the solution when you've got too much debt is to spend more!
It wasn't spending that got Greece into trouble: it was corruption and wastage surrounding borrowed money. They didn't invest the original loans in ways that would create a return that could be used to both grow the country and pay back the loans. Instead it was burned on crony capitalism and stolen by corrupt politicians. TBH, I feel those who are responsible should be prosecuted for treason.
Microsoft's last-ditch solution is to try to get their few remaining hostages and fanboys to not only pay for MS software, but to keep paying again and again every month.
I don't like Windows, but who are these few remaining hostages and fanboys you speak of? Would they be the The >90% of users on Windows machines?
Most of history was a worst time to be alive than right now, for the average person at least. It just somehow always seems to be fashionable to claim that "things were always better in the good ole days". It's just stupid cliche' bullshit from entitled brats.
One form of depression comes from low serotonin.
I think this increasingly being questioned. example. I didn't read that particular lilnk, but there are lots of others like it.
This just takes the price for least informative summary ever. So a new cancer drug has effects. Ok great, every day we see these trials and most have at least some effect. Only in the last sentence is desribed why this particular trial is worth mentioning.
The summary says "The therapy involves genetically engineered T cells, targeted to the solid tumors using the MAGE-A3 protein as a unique marker expressed in up to 30 percent of cancers." Seems pretty informative to me.
It's a shame you didn't read the study because it addresses your point. By "phased out" they mean all new vehicles would be electric, with a few exceptions. It's like CFCs were phased out - they didn't force everyone to replace hold fridges.
TFA seems to be saying that switching quickly is a possibility, but there's nothing plausible to switch to right now. Planes and shipping aren't going to be EV and of course we need a solution to energy production. We have to shift to something with sufficient capacity and it's currently really unclear what that something is.
I work at a place that distributes medical supplies and one of the things we sell is 'skin markers', just small markers to write things like "THIS ARM" on patients before operations. It was such a problem that they actually had to come up with a solution for it to stop happening!
You phrase it ("such a problem") as though it would need to happen very regularly for solution like stickers to be needed. " I doubt this is so. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but there are huge numbers of operations taking place every year and these and other errors will occur. The point is that if it happens at all (even once a year) then it's a problem. It doesn't need to be often. So a simple solution to prevent surgeons working on the wrong organ or limb is a very good idea. This can be as simple as a placing a mark on the patient's body with a pen.
I think you're responding to a different story.
Email? Too complicated, we need Whatsapp!
IRC? Too complicated, we need Slack!
To be fair, both Whatsapp and Slack aren't just simpler alternatives to e-mail and IRC. They offer different substantially different features.
China's reported goal here is to "collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur." The goal of the Patriot act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". They key word being "intercept", which they were seeking to achieve by large-scale monitoring of communications. I'm sure the US would have tried to collate these data to predict who is a threat.
TBH, we already have high bandwidth interfaces. You can implant electrodes and relay the signals with a cable. The problem isn't so much the interface but the recording itself. Recording from vast numbers of neurons with high resolution (i.e. single cell resolution) is just too invasive: it means inserting very large numbers of electrodes deep into the tissue. The only point of a high-bandwidth interface is to relay data from vast numbers of electrodes and any time you do that it's going to be invasive. There are tricks people are playing with now to make this less invasive (e.g. multiplexing signals so you don't need one wire per electrode) but invasiveness is still a problem and this stuff about soldiers and drones is pure SciFi.
What about measuring reliability?
In all seriousness: probably because his benchmark programs don't measure reliability. This guy benchmarks stuff. A lot of stuff. He knows how to do it. This time he's benchmarked a bunch of Linux installs. We learn a little, but not so much. Yes, there are some big differences (like the disk performance going down). But often it's not clear why any of that stuff happened. So not very informative, to be honest.
If everybody is speeding, maybe the speed limit is too low.
Probably not, as The Fine Article states near the top: "... installed a camera on his roof and began writing speed-monitoring software after a 12-year-old pedestrian was injured by a car last October."
Single data point. Anecdote.
Other websites have a like button. So we need one here too. Whilst you're at it, you can make the site blue. That would make it better also.
People and their opinions have a huge influence on politics. Feeling as I do about abortion I almost never vote for a pro abortion candidate.
I'm really interested in in this. I understand that you can't vote against your conscience, so do you think you are put in a difficult position when it comes to voting? Do you sometimes feel you agree with a certain candidate, but because they are pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion) you can't vote for them? Is that the position you feel in with Sanders (if you don't mind my asking)?
You're right that people and their opinions influence politics. Of course that is true. My problem is that abortion (whilst an important ethical issue) shouldn't be swaying people's voting choices about how the country is run. It's just a different category of issue to things like inequality, foreign policy (e.g. stance on Iran or Israel or terror), how to regulate Wall Street, prisons for profit, or the war on drugs. In an ideal world, everyone can disagree about all that other stuff but get together and come up with some compromise on abortion. My hunch is that it's in the interests of the politicians for that not to happen. What do you think?
You sound like a reasonable person and I respect your views. It's nice to discuss with a anti-abortionist who doesn't make knee-jerk statements. I agree it's not good to use abortion as retroactive birth control. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't consider "where human life begins" to be a useful yardstick in the debate. Neither do I think it's self-evident that "life" begins at birth or even that "life" is a very useful word in this debate.
I don't think saying "life begins at conception" is that helpful because, apart from anything else, about 25% of conceptions end up as miscarriages. So biology itself is telling us that conception is far from a assurance of an eventual new organism. Perhaps because I'm a biologist I see the word "life" very mechanistically and I don't understand how it relates to abortion, which is an ethical issue. I see when the fetus starts to feel pain as relevant, for instance. But at which point it is "alive" just isn't useful to me because that word encompasses far too many things and states of being.
I think it's too black and white and too easy to say conception==life and therefore life==human being and therefore abortion==killing. I see a human embryo is a potential new human existence (I'll avoid the word "life"). However, what it actually is at the time of abortion is anything from an undifferentiated ball of cells ball of cells to a highly undeveloped embryo that has nothing in common with a person. So when I think about this issue I think about it in terms of what the embryo currently is, not what it might become. I don't see it as "killing a person" or "taking a human life" I see it "as removing a ball of cells" or "removing an embryo that is currently indistinguishable from a chicken embryo". Of course later term abortions begin to become very unpleasant and there would come a stage in pregnancy where I'd probably be averse to abortion for anything but health reasons. I don't have an opinion as to where that line is, though.
In any case, my main point is that none of the above should be a major influence on politics.
Appears debatable. He seems to me to have been acquited. What you're describing appear to be a contempt of court citation which led to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, which had certain other ramifications.
It's a slaughter is it not? The term is correct.
I don't think it is slaughter. I think "slaughter" is an emotive term designed to polarize people's views. Further, it's a term that references the slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament, making it harder for religious people not to oppose the issue.
I just can't see early term abortions as being anything other than the removal of an embryo. A potential human. Calling it murder seems very unreasonable. Anything in the first trimester seems like a non-issue to me. My wife is 8 weeks pregnant and if the 12 week scans and tests indicate Down's then we're having an abortion. I'll be disappointed, and worried for my wife's health, but I (we) have no qualms whatsoever about terminating it. I certainly won't feel like a killer.
I think the real concern is that abortion is illegal in about half of US states regardless of whether there is risk to the mother or the baby was the product of rape. That is unreasonable.
I don't know at what point I'd consider abortion the taking of a life. Probably by the third trimester. I don't have a fixed cut off in my head. I think it would depend on the reason. Also, by the third trimester there's the option of a premature delivery in the event of potential medical complications for the mother. So the issue is inherently a grey area.
I dispute the disagreement with Planned Parenthood's abortion efforts being religious only. You don't have to believe in God to oppose the slaughter of the unborn. Sure the churches are the loudest voices but I know plenty of non-believers who oppose abortion. Just because "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the 10 commandments from the bible doesn't invalidate it for most people.
The disagreement is mainly of religious origin; maybe not completely, but mostly. I think most non-religious people see things in a more fine-grained manner. In particular, I find phrases such as "the slaughter of the unborn" to be wildly over the top with respect to very early term abortions.
I don't think he's being an apologist. He's saying that we need more details to discover who was colluding in the scheme. He's also saying that it's not the private server that was the problem, but that fact that e-mails themselves were likely systematically being treated in an insecure manner (probably by many people).
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock. The e-mail scandal, on the other hand, is a big problem.
I don't know what is " turbo-liberal" about Planned Parenthood: it's an organization that provides health services. Some people disagree with some of those services on religious grounds. The resulting debate is given far too much importance on the National political stage. In reality, the issue is used as a tool to divide the electorate and everyone seems to fall for it.
I don't much like Hilary, but I like less silly ad hominem like saying "incontrovertible proof of mental illness", which just lower the standard of discourse and contribute nothing.
I agree you have a use-case that needs greater bandwidth. However, for people surfing the web and watching a few movies then 20 Mbit is fine. This must cover most people. I have a 1 Gbit connection at work (which I need) but at home I was on 20 Mbit until November when they bumped me up to 40 Mbit for free. I've never had trouble with 20 Mbit, even though I know how fast a 1 Gbit connection feels.
Seems like freedom of speech to me
You know what? Freedom of speech is there to protect important stuff, not bullshit like this. There is no absolute freedom of speech because there are already several forms of speech that, as a society, we deem illegal. So if a court decides that a vendor encouraging people to advertise for them for free is spamming, then I'm happy to take that in the spirit in which it is intended and not debase the important right to freedom of speech to defend Amazon. Where your rights are actually being eroded is by things such as "companies are people and are entitled to freedom of speech". That kind of thing concentrates power in the hands of the few whilst masquerading as democracy.
The great thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe in. If you don't believe in gravity and jump off of a tall building, you will still splatter when you hit the ground. By the way, there is no such thing as anti-science, only pro-ignorance. Let's call it for what it really is.
I don't agree. Ignorance isn't the same thing as science. Ignorance measures the level of knowledge you have on a topic. Whereas science isn't so much about the facts, but is a system for interrogating the world and determining what is true to the best of our abilities. Science is about gathering and evaluating evidence.
I agree that creationists are ignorant. But the main thing they're ignorant about is how science works. Their stance is anti-science because they are promoting creationism as a viable alternative to evolution, whilst being unwilling to understand how our evidence for evolution arises or even the difference between a theory and an idea. Creationists are anti-science because they inappropriately use sciency-sounding terminology to sow confusion and misunderstanding. They are also anti-science because their own ideas are not testable and exhibit serious logical flaws that they ignore. None of this is ignorance: it's a systematic effort to deceive, which is much worse.
In case you want to read the real article: here it is
This has certainly been my (limited) experience with Linux on Apple laptops. I've had annoying touchpad behavior and random failure to enter suspend on lid close (about 1% to 5% of the time). Twice I put the machine in my bag and pulled it out very hot because it failed to suspend.