Eh, why even have government recognized marriage at all? What is the compelling state interest in recognizing such a thing or providing benefits based on it?
There is none. However, we live in the real world where thousands of laws reference "marriage" and where the legal environment ensures that you cannot substitute private agreements for government-sanctioned marriage. So, what we are talking about is not what marriage should look like ideally, but what a reasonable and just policy is in the short term, and that is to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Long term, it would still be nice to get rid of the special legal treatment of marriage, but that is going to take decades.
After your belated realization that libertarians are against gun regulations, I'm afraid you're still about a million political insights short of being an informed voter.
You don't? It's ample. The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected. It doesn't matter if you're right, if you lose interest in whether people will think you're insane when you speak... you're insane.
For Trump and McAffee, holding back their opinions was never professionally necessary, so it wasn't "insane" for them to behave the way they did. And saying stupid things and not holding back seems to be working for Trump.
You're right that for Hillary, as a corrupt, manipulative politician whose wealth and power depends entirely on getting elected, it would have been "insane" to broadcast her actual beliefs. However, she still slipped up numerous times.
I see no evidence of the opposite, either.
Well, if you don't see any evidence for moral differences between Obama and McAffee, that is a stinging indictment of Obama.
With an AI, all the information you provide is logged and entered into computer databases. Talking to a human, data is ephemeral unless the human specifically enters it into a database or the conversation is recorded (and if it's recorded, that needs to be indicated and the recording is usually not searchable).
We split our time between Chicago, Malibu, and Marbella.
I think early business success has gone to Hansson's head, and he now thinks that as a wealthy, jet-setting CEO, he has the answers to everything. His views are the equivalent of "let them eat cake!"
Yes, that's what corporate CEOs do: they ask for handouts from the government. In this case, Tim Cook wants free training for the job skills needed by his company in order to reduce his labor costs.
Of course, I don't put it past Tim Cook to actually believe that he just wants to do something good "for the children" and that computers ought to be part of the school curriculum. In fact, computers ought to be: computer science is fundamental to modern mathematics and science and ought to be part of the math and science curriculum. But teaching basic computer science is not the same as teaching "coding". Coding is a job skill and has no more place as a part of a universal school curriculum than "welding", "tax preparing", or "chocolate making".
The solution is the same solution as for PCs: Android hardware needs to support installation of third party firmware. This requires a functioning "BIOS" (containing hardware-specific drivers) like the original BIOS was intended to be. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Correct. After imposing regulations that make the market less efficient, like disallowing caps, prices will go up, the number of users will go down, profits will go down, and everybody will be worse off, except for the tiny minority of very large data users who actually get subsidized by everybody else.
Do you understand the phrase "conflict of interest"?
Do you understand the phrase "special interests" and "political corruption"? That's exactly what we have here: politically vocal, spoiled geeks trying to get a handout at everybody else's expense.
The planet has never been in the same position as it would be with most fossil fuels burned
But we aren't talking about whether "it is in the same position" or what the effect of burning all the fossil fuels would be; the study already answered that: a global average temperature change of 9.5C, with most of that due to large amounts of warming in high latitudes and little warming at low latitudes. That's what the paper itself says its simulations show. Your attempts to argue against that are attempts to argue against straightforward and widely accepted climate change that climate change activists themselves rely on.
What we're talking about here is what the consequences of that would be. If it isn't obvious to you by itself that raising temperatures at high latitudes is generally good for life and makes climate milder, the Eocene provides a historical record of what happens under just the conditions the paper describes. And far from being a scorched earth with mass extinctions, life was thriving during the Eocene, in particular mammals and primates.
The only problem with 19.5C temperature increases at high latitudes is that the polar ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise. Sea level rise is certainly undesirable per se, but its rate is necessarily so limited that adaptation and mitigation is not a major issue for human civilization. In fact, after centuries of dominance and ossification, many of our current coastal megacities ought to be replaced by new, fresh urban centers, a process of migration and renewal that is essential to civilization and progress.
You mean your God-given right to consume unlimited amounts of data, forcing regular users to subsidize your usage? Thanks, but I think if you get "squeezed" like that, that's fine with me.
Where is the government when we truly needs them?
If "no caps" became the law, these companies would simply raise their prices for everybody, making Internet less affordable.
Gawker is a gossip blog, not "a free press", because being part of "a free press" requires at least complying with some professional ethical standards and codes of conduct.
And even if they were part of "a free press", that gives them exactly zero immunity from lawsuits.
What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.
That's a nice fiction, but in reality, the award against Gawker is $140 million, more than Hogan originally asked for. So your idea that his lawyers weren't maximizing the award seems pretty ludicrous. Furthermore, judges have little tolerance for lawyers that play legal games in order to harass people; lawyers can find themselves in big trouble for that.
In different words, your allegations are unreasonable and seem fabricated.
the notion that someone rich enough can use the court system in this manner to destroy a news organization, even a terrible tabloid one, just because he doesn't like what it says, should scare us
No, it shouldn't. Gawker isn't barraged by numerous frivolous lawsuits all financed by one rich guy; they have faced a major lawsuit and have lost.
Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy.
No, it's not. Free speech is an essential element of any democracy; "the press" has neither special rights, nor special privileges, nor special functions. Historically, people have chosen to outsource some aspects of speech to a "press" profession, but that was simply due to technological limitations.
And Gawker isn't even "press", it's a gossip blog. That means that they don't even play by the rules that supposedly distinguish the press from regular free speech.
The middle class is a huge recipient of government subsidies. And your faux concern for "the poor" is really just a feeble attempt to justify your own greed and entitlement. Beyond that, you evidently have the kind of trouble you accuse other of having: "grasping even the simplest economics".
Even at $15/hour, it's not a livable wage in most places. You can't survive on it when your pre-tax, gross income is less than the average one bedroom apartment costs per month, as is the case in Los Angeles.
Are you kidding me? You measure "most places" by Los Angeles?
The problem isn't paying employees $15/hour, the problem is paying McDonald's a quarter of the true cost of making a Big Mac, so that the corporate investors can get richer.
MacDonald's is a franchise operation, and the operators have thing profit margins. And if the costs of those franchisees go up, they pass that along directly to their customers, who are mostly low income themeselves.
All big, national chains are heavily (if covertly) subsidized by the taxpayer. Sam Walton became a billionarire on those subsidies, while his employees were living on food stamps.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Sam Walton didn't ask for those food stamps, and he didn't need them. If you don't like food stamps, just work towards eliminating them. No civilized country has a $15/h minimum wage.
If you can't afford to pay your employees enough to live on without subsidies, then your business model is broken, and you should be driven out of business by pitchfork wielding mobs.
I'm sure you will do just that. It's not corporations, it's people like you that make life at the bottom end of the economic spectrum so miserable.
I think you need to research how Google's tax scheme works.
No, you need to realize that personal income is just very different from business profits. Personal income tax is probably the hardest tax to avoid among all the taxes we face day to day. That's why your analogy doesn't work at all.
No, income from employment is not equivalent to profits. Reducing income taxes is very hard because income is reported by your employer; there is little ambiguity about it, and it's easy to place limits on allowable deductions.
As for celebrities having"actually"moved to Switzerland, how do you know? Obviously, they need to own property in Switzerland and spend a little time there, but you have no idea how they spend their time otherwise. From personal experience, I can tell you that it is easy to have your primary residence in a country while actually spending most of your time elsewhere. There is nothing unusual or illegal about that.
Peer reviewers will determine whether Myhrvold's argument is basically reasonable, though not necessarily whether it's actually true. That's the most information anybody can get out of a scientific paper without understanding it. Truth is ultimately only determined by actual data.
On January 5, while Fitbit was promoting its latest fitness tracking watch at CES in Las Vegas, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company on behalf of users of the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. The claim: That the devices misread heart rates by “a very significant margin, particularly during exercise.”
At Consumer Reports, we were surprised because we had tested both of the devices, and found the heart rate readings to be quite accurate. We decided to retest these models to confirm that we should continue to recommend them. And to learn more about their performance, we added some elements to our standard fitness-tracker test protocol. The result: Both the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge passed our tests handily, accurately recording heart rates at everything from a leisurely walk up to a fast run. (The details are outlined down below under “How We Tested.”)
This should be a reassuring finding for many Fitbit customers.
Well, it's good that you at least realize that. NotInHere was talking about "saving the earth", implying that neither humans nor the earth will survive. You're acknowledging that the earth and humans will survive,
Human civilization is the issue, and it's going to take a serious hit. The best conditions for civilization are at least similar to the ones it was created in.
The "conditions that human civilization was created in" were massive climate change, massive environmental change, massive resource shortages, and nearly constant war. It is change, fear, and scarcity that drives human progress, not stability, complacency, and abundance. That doesn't mean that we should deliberately create fear and scarcity, but your argument that stability is "the best conditions" simply doesn't work.
In any case, we know what a climate in which most fossil fuel is back in the atmosphere will look like because we've already had it, during the Eocene: it's mild and wet across the globe, with much more land in the kind of temperate climate zones that civilization are associated with today. That's because "climate change" doesn't uniformly turn up the heat across the globe; warming is an average, and warming is strongest in cold places.
Slashdot Mirror
There is none. However, we live in the real world where thousands of laws reference "marriage" and where the legal environment ensures that you cannot substitute private agreements for government-sanctioned marriage. So, what we are talking about is not what marriage should look like ideally, but what a reasonable and just policy is in the short term, and that is to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Long term, it would still be nice to get rid of the special legal treatment of marriage, but that is going to take decades.
After your belated realization that libertarians are against gun regulations, I'm afraid you're still about a million political insights short of being an informed voter.
For Trump and McAffee, holding back their opinions was never professionally necessary, so it wasn't "insane" for them to behave the way they did. And saying stupid things and not holding back seems to be working for Trump.
You're right that for Hillary, as a corrupt, manipulative politician whose wealth and power depends entirely on getting elected, it would have been "insane" to broadcast her actual beliefs. However, she still slipped up numerous times.
Well, if you don't see any evidence for moral differences between Obama and McAffee, that is a stinging indictment of Obama.
With an AI, all the information you provide is logged and entered into computer databases. Talking to a human, data is ephemeral unless the human specifically enters it into a database or the conversation is recorded (and if it's recorded, that needs to be indicated and the recording is usually not searchable).
I think early business success has gone to Hansson's head, and he now thinks that as a wealthy, jet-setting CEO, he has the answers to everything. His views are the equivalent of "let them eat cake!"
Yes, that's what corporate CEOs do: they ask for handouts from the government. In this case, Tim Cook wants free training for the job skills needed by his company in order to reduce his labor costs.
Of course, I don't put it past Tim Cook to actually believe that he just wants to do something good "for the children" and that computers ought to be part of the school curriculum. In fact, computers ought to be: computer science is fundamental to modern mathematics and science and ought to be part of the math and science curriculum. But teaching basic computer science is not the same as teaching "coding". Coding is a job skill and has no more place as a part of a universal school curriculum than "welding", "tax preparing", or "chocolate making".
The solution is the same solution as for PCs: Android hardware needs to support installation of third party firmware. This requires a functioning "BIOS" (containing hardware-specific drivers) like the original BIOS was intended to be. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
C++, D, Python, Julia, Go, to name just a few.
But C# is also a choice; unlike Java, it has an open standard. And it's also more "cross platform" than Java.
If women engage in "misogynistic speech", it must be because men forced them to internalize misogyny! What other explanation could there be?
Correct. After imposing regulations that make the market less efficient, like disallowing caps, prices will go up, the number of users will go down, profits will go down, and everybody will be worse off, except for the tiny minority of very large data users who actually get subsidized by everybody else.
Do you understand the phrase "special interests" and "political corruption"? That's exactly what we have here: politically vocal, spoiled geeks trying to get a handout at everybody else's expense.
But we aren't talking about whether "it is in the same position" or what the effect of burning all the fossil fuels would be; the study already answered that: a global average temperature change of 9.5C, with most of that due to large amounts of warming in high latitudes and little warming at low latitudes. That's what the paper itself says its simulations show. Your attempts to argue against that are attempts to argue against straightforward and widely accepted climate change that climate change activists themselves rely on.
What we're talking about here is what the consequences of that would be. If it isn't obvious to you by itself that raising temperatures at high latitudes is generally good for life and makes climate milder, the Eocene provides a historical record of what happens under just the conditions the paper describes. And far from being a scorched earth with mass extinctions, life was thriving during the Eocene, in particular mammals and primates.
The only problem with 19.5C temperature increases at high latitudes is that the polar ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise. Sea level rise is certainly undesirable per se, but its rate is necessarily so limited that adaptation and mitigation is not a major issue for human civilization. In fact, after centuries of dominance and ossification, many of our current coastal megacities ought to be replaced by new, fresh urban centers, a process of migration and renewal that is essential to civilization and progress.
You mean your God-given right to consume unlimited amounts of data, forcing regular users to subsidize your usage? Thanks, but I think if you get "squeezed" like that, that's fine with me.
If "no caps" became the law, these companies would simply raise their prices for everybody, making Internet less affordable.
Gawker is a gossip blog, not "a free press", because being part of "a free press" requires at least complying with some professional ethical standards and codes of conduct.
And even if they were part of "a free press", that gives them exactly zero immunity from lawsuits.
That's a nice fiction, but in reality, the award against Gawker is $140 million, more than Hogan originally asked for. So your idea that his lawyers weren't maximizing the award seems pretty ludicrous. Furthermore, judges have little tolerance for lawyers that play legal games in order to harass people; lawyers can find themselves in big trouble for that.
In different words, your allegations are unreasonable and seem fabricated.
No, it shouldn't. Gawker isn't barraged by numerous frivolous lawsuits all financed by one rich guy; they have faced a major lawsuit and have lost.
No, it's not. Free speech is an essential element of any democracy; "the press" has neither special rights, nor special privileges, nor special functions. Historically, people have chosen to outsource some aspects of speech to a "press" profession, but that was simply due to technological limitations.
And Gawker isn't even "press", it's a gossip blog. That means that they don't even play by the rules that supposedly distinguish the press from regular free speech.
The middle class is a huge recipient of government subsidies. And your faux concern for "the poor" is really just a feeble attempt to justify your own greed and entitlement. Beyond that, you evidently have the kind of trouble you accuse other of having: "grasping even the simplest economics".
Yeah, "entitled snowflake" describes pricks like you.
Are you kidding me? You measure "most places" by Los Angeles?
MacDonald's is a franchise operation, and the operators have thing profit margins. And if the costs of those franchisees go up, they pass that along directly to their customers, who are mostly low income themeselves.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Sam Walton didn't ask for those food stamps, and he didn't need them. If you don't like food stamps, just work towards eliminating them. No civilized country has a $15/h minimum wage.
I'm sure you will do just that. It's not corporations, it's people like you that make life at the bottom end of the economic spectrum so miserable.
No, you need to realize that personal income is just very different from business profits. Personal income tax is probably the hardest tax to avoid among all the taxes we face day to day. That's why your analogy doesn't work at all.
No, income from employment is not equivalent to profits. Reducing income taxes is very hard because income is reported by your employer; there is little ambiguity about it, and it's easy to place limits on allowable deductions.
As for celebrities having"actually"moved to Switzerland, how do you know? Obviously, they need to own property in Switzerland and spend a little time there, but you have no idea how they spend their time otherwise. From personal experience, I can tell you that it is easy to have your primary residence in a country while actually spending most of your time elsewhere. There is nothing unusual or illegal about that.
Peer reviewers will determine whether Myhrvold's argument is basically reasonable, though not necessarily whether it's actually true. That's the most information anybody can get out of a scientific paper without understanding it. Truth is ultimately only determined by actual data.
Medically, heart rate always involves averaging many beats, usually by counting beats over a time interval.
http://www.consumerreports.org...
Well, it's good that you at least realize that. NotInHere was talking about "saving the earth", implying that neither humans nor the earth will survive. You're acknowledging that the earth and humans will survive,
The "conditions that human civilization was created in" were massive climate change, massive environmental change, massive resource shortages, and nearly constant war. It is change, fear, and scarcity that drives human progress, not stability, complacency, and abundance. That doesn't mean that we should deliberately create fear and scarcity, but your argument that stability is "the best conditions" simply doesn't work.
In any case, we know what a climate in which most fossil fuel is back in the atmosphere will look like because we've already had it, during the Eocene: it's mild and wet across the globe, with much more land in the kind of temperate climate zones that civilization are associated with today. That's because "climate change" doesn't uniformly turn up the heat across the globe; warming is an average, and warming is strongest in cold places.