To be fare to both sexes they should introduce a feature to validade photos with no make-up and push-up bras.
If this is actually a april fool's joke, I look forward to see they do it next year with weight verification for women, including the same corny video showing them puting their weight as 95lb, then 110lb, then 140lb and getting a verification icon. No chance of rabid comments at all, no sir.
Their business model is to build a walled garden and be the gatekeepers, only allowing services from outside to interact with the cattle if they pay a hefty fee. This is worst than taxes from the state because, for better or worse, taxes will came back as benefits like roads, conflict resolution (justice), education and health.
I remember seen a news item 15 years ago or so where a British dude was been sued because he was misusing a premium number that charges the caller when receiving a call, basically he was receiving a lot of telemarketer calls and robocalls so he decided to convert his number to one that charges when receiving a call and would happily stay a long time with them on the phone while earning 50p per minute.
This is the reason the GMO scare craze is based completely on ignorance, the techniques used to modify organism are based on mechanisms that happen in nature, we didn't "invent" anything, just copied and added control on what is being modified, and every single organism is genetically modified, from bacteria to the blue whale, through out history of evolution snippets of DNA travel from one species to another, and without any control whatsoever, except that if the change is too bad the individual will die or not reproduce, we still have franken-tomatos even without human intervention.
An important clarification on the subject of IARC Groups classification is that being in any group, like 2A Probable Carcinogens, means how strong is the EVIDENCE of such agent to be a risk of causing cancer, it has nothing to do with amount of risk related to the agent, i.e., if we had an agent that caused cancer on 100% of people it came in contact with, but there are no studies about it because it is extremely rare or unlikely to be in contact with a human would be in Group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity), but another agent that has very strongly based evidence that it can cause cancer in 1 in 100 million individuals would be classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans).
Group 1 has thing like alcoholic beverages and estrogen therapy, and group 3 has crude oil, which can contain a any number of really bad substancies.
The number of down votes doesn't have much to do with youtube pseudo-celebreties being left out, but everithing to do with being a HORRIBLE video.
Truly, it is really that bad, they poured huge amounts of money into it and they've got something simply unwatchable, i've seen (or tried to see it) on the first day, before any of those news about it being the must disliked video on the site, or the analysis said that so and so are missing and some other random guy that only stream on twitch is there, and I still could get to half of it.
The video is the most disliked because it was pushed to everybody that visits the site and it was writen by a committee that has no idea of what it is doing.
If you think about it, converting to EV would be perfect because the battery is under the floor and the engine is much smaller than the old ICE and would leave a LOT of space for the guns and gadgets, it could actually work!
I think dozens of millions of people disagree with you here, including me.
Their content isn't all wonderful, there are bad shows and movies, but there are also very, very good ones, and most importantly, there is content in a quite wide spectrum, that you can watch at ANYTIME you wish.
And comparing netflix to CNN and MSNBC is comparing apple to oranges.
The most important question is when the second tech bubble is going to burst? I feel we are way past the level when the first one happened, we have companies with zero or very little income being sold by tens of billions of dollars, others that say with all the letters on the IPO that are likely to never become profitable, and the whole VR/AR segment that seem to be going the way of the 3D movies, good gimmick, but the cosumers expected a lot more from such an expensive device and fell short of the hype.
So, when the market will realise the king is naked and finally adjust?
Read most of the paper and the SciAm article, and I have two critiques, one for the paper and one for SciAm:
For the paper what seem to have happen is two fold.
First they had an open question, wanted to see if patients had different outcomes from male and female doctors, this is a prime example on how to poke the data until something came out, you just look at every combination until something presents a statistical significant value, I bet that if they do this study again they will get different findings.
Second, the difference was not that big, 0,5% less on the outcome of both cases, mortality and readmission, (or about 4% in relative terms) when treated by a woman, when the biggest difference in outcome, according the numbers by SciAm, was the gender itself, 26% of women will die within a year of a heart attack compared with 19% of men.
The researches say they adjusted for several factors, but I wonder if differences in choices of time or location of work between men and women may cause the difference, if it is actually real.
And by the way, the mean age of patients in the study is 80 years old, and almost 2/3 were women.
For the SciAm article, they seem to not report on the paper, but on part of the raw data in the paper, which is likely not adjusted for confounding factors and the report also seem very biased and sensationalist.
I don't know if it just me, but I was a bit underwhelmed.
Anything space is difficult as shit, but after seeing the Space X suicide landings, watching Blue Origins is just a bit boring, is like seeing someone parallel park in a really tight spot after seeing someone park at the same stop but doing a bootleg turn.
Baidu is basically malware, I have fixed countless computers were their software was sneakily installed and was dominated by it, and it is probably a state sponsored spy tool.
Didn't read TFA, but there is a hurdle, if I not mistaken, legally the data of Brazilian people should stay within the country to be accessible by authorities if needed, I doubt they will keep infrastructure here just for that.
I'd love to see someone making a graph of what gartner and IDG predict and what actually happened and show how stupidly off those predictions actually are. Usually in economic predictions, short term at least, are kind of self fulfilling, as people may tend to use them as targets, but the ones made by these 2 entities a more like random number generators...
I know you didn't ask but I'll give my suggestion anyway.
I use inoreader, the page for the desktop is very useful and the app (at least for android) is great, a lot of features including an internal small web browser to load feeds quickly with just an up or down pull gesture.
That's why I said "with current technology", I totally agree with you that if we have a leap like anti-gravity or something flying cars would be awesome, but with propellers it is just an expensive toy that some people with more money than sense are trying to develop for almost a century.
And to complement my other post, it being autonomous helps avoid some accidents, but it would by no means make it safe, people would still be around those damn naked propellers (I think that is a really bad decision safetywise) and maintenance for flying machines is something extremely important, having several propellers may make more difficult to have a disaster if one motor stops working mid-flight, but anything beyond that is pretty much certain death.
We joke about when we will have flying cars, but in reality I don't understand why people really want it, at least with current technology.
Those are expensive to operate, as the energy requirement to keep something afloat without it being as or less dense than the surrounding environment is quite big, they are incredibly noisy, need really good maintenance, as any incident can cause death of passengers and people around, which is expensive, and they cannot carry much, and this machine specifically has some limbs chopping propellers, which are just asking to be a major safety hazard with children and drunk people.
We already have "flying cars" called helicopters, and they absurdly expensive and complicated machines, that only work for very wealthy people or business like offshore oil exploration, because the alternative is either very inconvenient, takes a lot more time, or can is even more expensive.
blasfemy, to be audiophile grade this speaker should have gold contacts, be analog, cost an arm and a leg, have a "warm" and "full" sound, but be no different than a 5 dollar speaker to everyone else.
I'm not defending Musk's behavior, but it is not like ULA does not play US congress and senate to get contracts and the like, he is just playing the game.
Regarding ULA costs, it is expensive because they could charge those prices, rockets are very niche and not that many companies are capable of building one, and the over-engineering costs can be a requirement by the air force, but they also the advantage of that, they weren't complaining before.
Completely disagree, reusing the first stage reduces the cost so much that it left the other rocket companies running like headless chickens, they are really afraid to simply loose all lunches covered by F9 lifting capacity simply because spacex can potentially charge tens of million dollars less and still have a lot of profit.
The risk associated with the discussion forum account comes from people reusing passwords or having a pattern, if you use password managers with random passwords, the risk is almost non existent, but if you are really paranoid you could just use single use email accounts.
There are benefits to having an account here and in other discussion forums, as pointed out in other answers, and the security risk comes from bad habits, not the account themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just leave this here, because this would be exactly what will happen QI S16E10
To be fare to both sexes they should introduce a feature to validade photos with no make-up and push-up bras.
If this is actually a april fool's joke, I look forward to see they do it next year with weight verification for women, including the same corny video showing them puting their weight as 95lb, then 110lb, then 140lb and getting a verification icon. No chance of rabid comments at all, no sir.
this is why I still come to slashdot, thank you for you comment sir!
Their business model is to build a walled garden and be the gatekeepers, only allowing services from outside to interact with the cattle if they pay a hefty fee. This is worst than taxes from the state because, for better or worse, taxes will came back as benefits like roads, conflict resolution (justice), education and health.
This would help solve a lot of this issues.
This is the reason the GMO scare craze is based completely on ignorance, the techniques used to modify organism are based on mechanisms that happen in nature, we didn't "invent" anything, just copied and added control on what is being modified, and every single organism is genetically modified, from bacteria to the blue whale, through out history of evolution snippets of DNA travel from one species to another, and without any control whatsoever, except that if the change is too bad the individual will die or not reproduce, we still have franken-tomatos even without human intervention.
Group 1 has thing like alcoholic beverages and estrogen therapy, and group 3 has crude oil, which can contain a any number of really bad substancies.
Truly, it is really that bad, they poured huge amounts of money into it and they've got something simply unwatchable, i've seen (or tried to see it) on the first day, before any of those news about it being the must disliked video on the site, or the analysis said that so and so are missing and some other random guy that only stream on twitch is there, and I still could get to half of it.
The video is the most disliked because it was pushed to everybody that visits the site and it was writen by a committee that has no idea of what it is doing.
If you think about it, converting to EV would be perfect because the battery is under the floor and the engine is much smaller than the old ICE and would leave a LOT of space for the guns and gadgets, it could actually work!
Their content isn't all wonderful, there are bad shows and movies, but there are also very, very good ones, and most importantly, there is content in a quite wide spectrum, that you can watch at ANYTIME you wish.
And comparing netflix to CNN and MSNBC is comparing apple to oranges.
So, when the market will realise the king is naked and finally adjust?
and riding a giant tardigrage!
For the paper what seem to have happen is two fold.
First they had an open question, wanted to see if patients had different outcomes from male and female doctors, this is a prime example on how to poke the data until something came out, you just look at every combination until something presents a statistical significant value, I bet that if they do this study again they will get different findings.
Second, the difference was not that big, 0,5% less on the outcome of both cases, mortality and readmission, (or about 4% in relative terms) when treated by a woman, when the biggest difference in outcome, according the numbers by SciAm, was the gender itself, 26% of women will die within a year of a heart attack compared with 19% of men.
The researches say they adjusted for several factors, but I wonder if differences in choices of time or location of work between men and women may cause the difference, if it is actually real.
And by the way, the mean age of patients in the study is 80 years old, and almost 2/3 were women.
For the SciAm article, they seem to not report on the paper, but on part of the raw data in the paper, which is likely not adjusted for confounding factors and the report also seem very biased and sensationalist.
Anything space is difficult as shit, but after seeing the Space X suicide landings, watching Blue Origins is just a bit boring, is like seeing someone parallel park in a really tight spot after seeing someone park at the same stop but doing a bootleg turn.
Didn't read TFA, but there is a hurdle, if I not mistaken, legally the data of Brazilian people should stay within the country to be accessible by authorities if needed, I doubt they will keep infrastructure here just for that.
I'd love to see someone making a graph of what gartner and IDG predict and what actually happened and show how stupidly off those predictions actually are. Usually in economic predictions, short term at least, are kind of self fulfilling, as people may tend to use them as targets, but the ones made by these 2 entities a more like random number generators...
I use inoreader, the page for the desktop is very useful and the app (at least for android) is great, a lot of features including an internal small web browser to load feeds quickly with just an up or down pull gesture.
Do you have a source for this?
That's why I said "with current technology", I totally agree with you that if we have a leap like anti-gravity or something flying cars would be awesome, but with propellers it is just an expensive toy that some people with more money than sense are trying to develop for almost a century.
And to complement my other post, it being autonomous helps avoid some accidents, but it would by no means make it safe, people would still be around those damn naked propellers (I think that is a really bad decision safetywise) and maintenance for flying machines is something extremely important, having several propellers may make more difficult to have a disaster if one motor stops working mid-flight, but anything beyond that is pretty much certain death.
Those are expensive to operate, as the energy requirement to keep something afloat without it being as or less dense than the surrounding environment is quite big, they are incredibly noisy, need really good maintenance, as any incident can cause death of passengers and people around, which is expensive, and they cannot carry much, and this machine specifically has some limbs chopping propellers, which are just asking to be a major safety hazard with children and drunk people.
We already have "flying cars" called helicopters, and they absurdly expensive and complicated machines, that only work for very wealthy people or business like offshore oil exploration, because the alternative is either very inconvenient, takes a lot more time, or can is even more expensive.
blasfemy, to be audiophile grade this speaker should have gold contacts, be analog, cost an arm and a leg, have a "warm" and "full" sound, but be no different than a 5 dollar speaker to everyone else.
At least they definetly should call Private Browsing, his already seem too much heavy stuff.
Regarding ULA costs, it is expensive because they could charge those prices, rockets are very niche and not that many companies are capable of building one, and the over-engineering costs can be a requirement by the air force, but they also the advantage of that, they weren't complaining before.
Completely disagree, reusing the first stage reduces the cost so much that it left the other rocket companies running like headless chickens, they are really afraid to simply loose all lunches covered by F9 lifting capacity simply because spacex can potentially charge tens of million dollars less and still have a lot of profit.
There are benefits to having an account here and in other discussion forums, as pointed out in other answers, and the security risk comes from bad habits, not the account themselves.