True, but it has to be measured against the harm of 2,220 people continuing to do whatever they were doing. Some may have been escaping criminals. Others likely would have harmed a police officer or passerby.
I have no idea what circumstances these were used in. Some were, without doubt, unnecessary use of force, and at least some of those 2,220 people who were pepper sprayed would have been beaten by police instead, or simply allowed to lawfully go about their business (or engage in nonviolent civil disobedience).
But I can't really judge the merit of the introduction of the spray from just the numbers I've been given. And I'm always suspicious when people give me an insufficient set of numbers while implying that I'm just supposed to imagine the worst case. It makes me want to side against them. In this case, they're probably not deliberately hiding the data I need; it's probably impossible to gather. But I can't ignore the feeling that I'm being manipulated with the statistics.
Except that stars don't actually twinkle when seen from space. I'm sure it looked great to its earth-bound audience, and may even have been worth the trouble to look more intuitive, but it's actually wronger than leaving it alone.
In this case, Santorum may well be selling something you want. If you detest Santorum, voting for him may be in your best interest. Santorum stands practically no chance of beating Obama, while Romney stands at least a 50-50 chance. (Some polls say otherwise. Those polls are smoking crack.) Romney represents the same party as Santorum, and Santorum's supporters would have significantly more say in a Romney administration than an Obama one.
This is, in effect, a perfect case for advertising. Santorum's marketing an option you may not have known about: that a Democrat can vote in the Republican primary. It is a win for you to learn something you didn't know.
Of course he's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it because he thinks he can win. So you do need to take his plea with a grain of salt. He thinks he can win, and if you do too, you'll turn down his offer.
The fact that he's doing it via robocalls makes him slime, but they're all slime. Not-slime is not an option.
The Emmys distinguish between comedies and dramas, and a bunch of other things. And that diminishes their value: there are nearly 100 Emmys and only 24 Oscars. That's why the Emmy broadcast draws in the low teens, while the Oscars draw as much as 40 million people.
The Oscar Sci-Fi category would thrill genre viewers and bore everybody else. And they'd turn it off when they got to the Rom-Com Genre, the Historical Genre, the Biopic Genre, etc.
Everybody watches the Oscars because of the three big categories: best pic, best actor, best actress. The rest is filler, sometimes entertaining, sometimes not. Best pic is at the end, to keep viewers all night. More awards would make the telecast even less interesting than it already is. You want sci-fi awards, go to Worldcon.
When did that happen to Honda? It matches what I've heard. But five years ago, when I went to replace my last Honda, the Fit was still a much better car than the Toyota equivalents. It's got 135k on it with absolutely no surprises.
I'm hearing more and more reports of Honda lemons, so something's going on. But Toyota also had some well-publicized disasters.
Next time I'll have to give an American car a consideration. My experience with them in the early 90s was so bad that I didn't even look at them in the mid-2000s.
Microsoft clarified later: they gave $60k worth of free donated software, which they regularly do for 501(c)3s who ask. They're not taking sides; you ask, they give. There was no cash contribution, and they don't appear to have done any due diligence. They do, however, get to take it off their taxes.
It's unusual for there to _be_ a company with a lick of design sense. Design is time consuming, and most tech companies would rather get something to the market rather than take the extra time it takes to do the design right. It's a whole extra set of employees, and fussy ones at that, adding to the cost without improving the feature-set.
Especially since, once you do get it right, somebody else will copy it. As soon as Apple comes out with something, everybody says, "Well, yeah, we could have done that." But you didn't. Or they say, "But it doesn't do X." No, it just does what it does, really, really well, and a surprising number of people are happier with a device that does a few things exceptionally than with a device that they can make do other stuff.
What ticks me off about it is the abuse of history. Fawkes (and others; Fawkes was largely the fall guy) was attempting to kill the Protestant King James I so they could install a Catholic on the throne. And an underaged Catholic at that; they would make themselves the regent, tied to the king of Spain.
This wasn't a blow for freedom. It was a coup to replace one monarch with another, and a slightly-tolerant regime with an intolerant one.
The original Fawkes wasn't a hero of any kind. If the book and film have any "greatness" to them, it's in the power of a compelling piece of propaganda to mislead. The anarchists who feel inspired by it were manipulated, and that should be a cautionary tale, not a role model.
That was my first thought, too. I've been trying to figure out why the glaciologists were so surprised by this; it's what I would have expected.
I assume that they've got more sophisticated models than the simplistic one I have in my head, and that their understanding of the weather patterns called for less snow. But I haven't heard much from them beyond this article.
Yep. That's science, doing exactly what the deniers claim it doesn't do, and that's the reason why those who value knowledge over ideology favor the scientists over the deniers.
I've given up worrying about the climate change in itself. The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be). I'd kind of like to see science win out over ignorance, and I think science still has a slight edge. It maintains that edge by being the ones who take into account all of the facts to reach true conclusions, and altering their understanding when new facts come to light to keep their conclusions in line with the best understanding.
As a way to understand the world, it's more effective than ideology. As a way to make things happen, it's getting trounced, at least in this area. Perhaps I should care about the latter more than the former, but having lost there, I take what solace I can in at least trying to understand the world. Even if it means that some day the retards get to score extra points.
Ever work with real horses? They require a lot of training, they're skittish, and they're fragile. Horse people say they're born looking for a way to die. They're not as self-feeding in the desert, and require epic amounts of water.
You'd be better off with a mule or camel, creatures not known for friendliness. You need highly skilled operators. And they require care every day. They don't shut off.
In an ordinary news source, I'd call it "mis-translation". For the Daily Fail, it's more likely a deliberate misreading for the purpose of sensationalism. The line between that and an outright lie would is unclear, and both are the Daily Fail's daily bread and butter.
Thank you for the description of malolactic fermentation. In fact, a nice article devoted to the details of malo would be very informative: the challenges, the kinds of flavors it produces, how it's controlled, etc. That would be great.
I guess if what you're starting with is "some attention whore dumped a rock in his wine, and it's a SPACE ROCK" a science reporter has to do something for a second sentence. So, thanks for accidentally including some value in an otherwise pointless bit of attention whoring.
More or less, yeah. The jobs went to China because they were already irrelevant. Skilled producers always manage to out-produce unskilled ones, and we've reached the point where very little that you want can be produced by unskilled hands.
The only thing left to produce is "intellectual" property, which (as Slashdot readers continually remind us) has no value, precisely because it doesn't take much work to spread far and wide. The goal has always been to reduce the number of hours needed to survive, and we've reduced it to essentially zero. Everything else is leisure, and nobody wants the products of your leisure (at least, not enough to pay a non-trivial sum for it.)
We're not quite there, but it's coming closer every day, as the article suggests.
Marketing is a big part of it. As with Radiohead, they proved only that if the marketing money is already spent, you can coast.
He can figure web hosting and the cost of the venue and filming into his accounts, but he didn't take into account the money that was spent making him famous: spots on Letterman, Showtime specials, etc.
Unknown people try this experiment every single day on Myspace and Jango and such, and if they're lucky a musician will make enough money to pay for the studio time. They're not famous to start with and can't pay for TV time to make themselves famous.
If Louis CK were still some small-time hack making his way on the comedy circuit, there's no chance he'd have made back even the $200k he spent on this project. And as you observe, that's for the cheapest kind of movie you can imagine: some shmo talking in front of a camera, with no costumes, no effects, no locations, no score, no actors, etc.
There's also a dog-that-didn't-bark factor here. If the Higgs didn't exist at all, that absence would have manifested itself in this data. They still can't give the mass, but there was an opportunity for the data to surprise us, and it didn't. Which just means more looking, as opposed to going all the way back to the drawing board.
I'm one. I use NoScript rather than AdBlock because it blocks the kind of ads that make it hard to read what I'm trying to read. I don't mind the ads on Slashdot. I've been offered the option of turning them off, and I don't take it. I like the site and don't mind if that's what it takes to preserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it has to be measured against the harm of 2,220 people continuing to do whatever they were doing. Some may have been escaping criminals. Others likely would have harmed a police officer or passerby.
I have no idea what circumstances these were used in. Some were, without doubt, unnecessary use of force, and at least some of those 2,220 people who were pepper sprayed would have been beaten by police instead, or simply allowed to lawfully go about their business (or engage in nonviolent civil disobedience).
But I can't really judge the merit of the introduction of the spray from just the numbers I've been given. And I'm always suspicious when people give me an insufficient set of numbers while implying that I'm just supposed to imagine the worst case. It makes me want to side against them. In this case, they're probably not deliberately hiding the data I need; it's probably impossible to gather. But I can't ignore the feeling that I'm being manipulated with the statistics.
B-b-b-b-but velcro! And Tang! And space pens! And... and... and I'm sure I'll come up with something.
Ohhhhh... and now that I know, I wish I didn't. But thanks for telling me anyway.
There's another meaning? Google just turns up the physics one, at least for me.
Nooooooooooooo!
Except that stars don't actually twinkle when seen from space. I'm sure it looked great to its earth-bound audience, and may even have been worth the trouble to look more intuitive, but it's actually wronger than leaving it alone.
In this case, Santorum may well be selling something you want. If you detest Santorum, voting for him may be in your best interest. Santorum stands practically no chance of beating Obama, while Romney stands at least a 50-50 chance. (Some polls say otherwise. Those polls are smoking crack.) Romney represents the same party as Santorum, and Santorum's supporters would have significantly more say in a Romney administration than an Obama one.
This is, in effect, a perfect case for advertising. Santorum's marketing an option you may not have known about: that a Democrat can vote in the Republican primary. It is a win for you to learn something you didn't know.
Of course he's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it because he thinks he can win. So you do need to take his plea with a grain of salt. He thinks he can win, and if you do too, you'll turn down his offer.
The fact that he's doing it via robocalls makes him slime, but they're all slime. Not-slime is not an option.
The Emmys distinguish between comedies and dramas, and a bunch of other things. And that diminishes their value: there are nearly 100 Emmys and only 24 Oscars. That's why the Emmy broadcast draws in the low teens, while the Oscars draw as much as 40 million people.
The Oscar Sci-Fi category would thrill genre viewers and bore everybody else. And they'd turn it off when they got to the Rom-Com Genre, the Historical Genre, the Biopic Genre, etc.
Everybody watches the Oscars because of the three big categories: best pic, best actor, best actress. The rest is filler, sometimes entertaining, sometimes not. Best pic is at the end, to keep viewers all night. More awards would make the telecast even less interesting than it already is. You want sci-fi awards, go to Worldcon.
When did that happen to Honda? It matches what I've heard. But five years ago, when I went to replace my last Honda, the Fit was still a much better car than the Toyota equivalents. It's got 135k on it with absolutely no surprises.
I'm hearing more and more reports of Honda lemons, so something's going on. But Toyota also had some well-publicized disasters.
Next time I'll have to give an American car a consideration. My experience with them in the early 90s was so bad that I didn't even look at them in the mid-2000s.
Wish I had some mod points. Instead, I can just offer you kudos. Well said.
Microsoft clarified later: they gave $60k worth of free donated software, which they regularly do for 501(c)3s who ask. They're not taking sides; you ask, they give. There was no cash contribution, and they don't appear to have done any due diligence. They do, however, get to take it off their taxes.
It's unusual for there to _be_ a company with a lick of design sense. Design is time consuming, and most tech companies would rather get something to the market rather than take the extra time it takes to do the design right. It's a whole extra set of employees, and fussy ones at that, adding to the cost without improving the feature-set.
Especially since, once you do get it right, somebody else will copy it. As soon as Apple comes out with something, everybody says, "Well, yeah, we could have done that." But you didn't. Or they say, "But it doesn't do X." No, it just does what it does, really, really well, and a surprising number of people are happier with a device that does a few things exceptionally than with a device that they can make do other stuff.
What ticks me off about it is the abuse of history. Fawkes (and others; Fawkes was largely the fall guy) was attempting to kill the Protestant King James I so they could install a Catholic on the throne. And an underaged Catholic at that; they would make themselves the regent, tied to the king of Spain.
This wasn't a blow for freedom. It was a coup to replace one monarch with another, and a slightly-tolerant regime with an intolerant one.
The original Fawkes wasn't a hero of any kind. If the book and film have any "greatness" to them, it's in the power of a compelling piece of propaganda to mislead. The anarchists who feel inspired by it were manipulated, and that should be a cautionary tale, not a role model.
That was my first thought, too. I've been trying to figure out why the glaciologists were so surprised by this; it's what I would have expected.
I assume that they've got more sophisticated models than the simplistic one I have in my head, and that their understanding of the weather patterns called for less snow. But I haven't heard much from them beyond this article.
Yep. That's science, doing exactly what the deniers claim it doesn't do, and that's the reason why those who value knowledge over ideology favor the scientists over the deniers.
I've given up worrying about the climate change in itself. The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be). I'd kind of like to see science win out over ignorance, and I think science still has a slight edge. It maintains that edge by being the ones who take into account all of the facts to reach true conclusions, and altering their understanding when new facts come to light to keep their conclusions in line with the best understanding.
As a way to understand the world, it's more effective than ideology. As a way to make things happen, it's getting trounced, at least in this area. Perhaps I should care about the latter more than the former, but having lost there, I take what solace I can in at least trying to understand the world. Even if it means that some day the retards get to score extra points.
None of my MREs has a "horse" option. We can fix that.
Ever work with real horses? They require a lot of training, they're skittish, and they're fragile. Horse people say they're born looking for a way to die. They're not as self-feeding in the desert, and require epic amounts of water.
You'd be better off with a mule or camel, creatures not known for friendliness. You need highly skilled operators. And they require care every day. They don't shut off.
In an ordinary news source, I'd call it "mis-translation". For the Daily Fail, it's more likely a deliberate misreading for the purpose of sensationalism. The line between that and an outright lie would is unclear, and both are the Daily Fail's daily bread and butter.
It's a rock. You dumped a rock into your wine.
Thank you for the description of malolactic fermentation. In fact, a nice article devoted to the details of malo would be very informative: the challenges, the kinds of flavors it produces, how it's controlled, etc. That would be great.
I guess if what you're starting with is "some attention whore dumped a rock in his wine, and it's a SPACE ROCK" a science reporter has to do something for a second sentence. So, thanks for accidentally including some value in an otherwise pointless bit of attention whoring.
Small but relevant typo: Santorum has 7, not 8.
More or less, yeah. The jobs went to China because they were already irrelevant. Skilled producers always manage to out-produce unskilled ones, and we've reached the point where very little that you want can be produced by unskilled hands.
The only thing left to produce is "intellectual" property, which (as Slashdot readers continually remind us) has no value, precisely because it doesn't take much work to spread far and wide. The goal has always been to reduce the number of hours needed to survive, and we've reduced it to essentially zero. Everything else is leisure, and nobody wants the products of your leisure (at least, not enough to pay a non-trivial sum for it.)
We're not quite there, but it's coming closer every day, as the article suggests.
Er, Ron Paul is a Representative (TX-14). His son Rand is a Senator (KY).
Marketing is a big part of it. As with Radiohead, they proved only that if the marketing money is already spent, you can coast.
He can figure web hosting and the cost of the venue and filming into his accounts, but he didn't take into account the money that was spent making him famous: spots on Letterman, Showtime specials, etc.
Unknown people try this experiment every single day on Myspace and Jango and such, and if they're lucky a musician will make enough money to pay for the studio time. They're not famous to start with and can't pay for TV time to make themselves famous.
If Louis CK were still some small-time hack making his way on the comedy circuit, there's no chance he'd have made back even the $200k he spent on this project. And as you observe, that's for the cheapest kind of movie you can imagine: some shmo talking in front of a camera, with no costumes, no effects, no locations, no score, no actors, etc.
There's also a dog-that-didn't-bark factor here. If the Higgs didn't exist at all, that absence would have manifested itself in this data. They still can't give the mass, but there was an opportunity for the data to surprise us, and it didn't. Which just means more looking, as opposed to going all the way back to the drawing board.
I'm one. I use NoScript rather than AdBlock because it blocks the kind of ads that make it hard to read what I'm trying to read. I don't mind the ads on Slashdot. I've been offered the option of turning them off, and I don't take it. I like the site and don't mind if that's what it takes to preserve it.