I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't necessarily have any ethical qualms with killing and eating animals, but if I could eat meat without killing an animal most of the time and save energy in the process, I'm good with that.
I think the extreme claim (of TFA, anyway) is an extinction-level event, though, particularly global warming and nuclear war. "Even human extinction isn't all that unlikely." The odds themselves seem high -- 0.5% is at least an order of magnitude too high, based on the exact same criteria the author uses -- intuition. But even if those events do occur, I think extinction is exceedingly unlikely. Humans are masters of modifying their environment and living in extreme conditions, so I believe it would take something that would make the earth completely uninhabitable for life, like a massive collision between the earth and a celestial body. Decimation of the global human population seems far more probable than extinction -- probably at least an order of magnitude more likely, if not several. That's not to say that a 90% reduction in population is likely, but extinction in the near-term is just so much more unlikely.
Indeed. Working in those mining data centers really dries the skin, and the low returns are definitely responsible for many tears being shed. I think "decades" is a stretch though.
I think too many people forget what it's like to be young. Anyone here remember *just* wanting sex? Maybe a few, but considering that men rely on their partners either primarily or exclusively for emotional support, to a far larger degree than do women, I'd say there's more to it than sex. Teaching girls that boys only want "one thing," or that sex is "wrong" only leads to the neuroses we have as a culture when it comes to sex. It's a holdover from when sex was all but guaranteed to lead to childbirth and responsibilities that people weren't ready for (for part of our history, anyway). Not that that stopped anyone, but the sentiment was at least understandable. I don't want to think about my daughter having sex, but I don't want her to feel ashamed of it, or that men are predators. That just exacerbates the gender divide and the neuroses our culture has about sex, and insults our sons in the process.
Not surprising, since they thoroughly destroyed everything with pertinent information on it. Why would they leave the iPhone untouched unless it was -- unsurprisingly -- used only for the purpose it was issued: work. This guy (or couple) was clearly exercising opsec, not even talking to their relatives about their feelings, let alone their plans, so it would have been more surprising if they had found anything on it.
There is no right of the government to monitor communications. Before we had communications technology, it was all but impossible. The telegraph offered the first viable method for the government (and others) to spy on any and all communications, followed by the telephone, the cellphone, email, texts, etc. At each step, security was an afterthought, and so it provided a larger and larger attack surface. Governments (and others) have enjoyed the access that inattention has brought for too long. For so long, in fact, that they now view their access as an inalienable right that's being assaulted by "evil" tech companies.
The fact is that communications cannot be subject to eavesdropping by the government without also being subject to eavesdropping by criminals. The government knows this, and uses encryption to protect its own communications. The banks know this, and use encryption to protect their communications. Criminals know this, and use encryption to protect theirs. But that doesn't make criminals omnipotent. It doesn't even obstruct targeted surveillance. From bugs to keyloggers to laser microphones to tails, there are a wide array of surveillance tools and techniques to practice targeted surveillance. The problem is laziness -- the government wants to sit on its ass and let the information come to it, instead of going out and collecting it.
That's all well and good, if it works. But the downside isn't just the potential for abuse by the government, or the lack of oversight, or the intrusiveness. An insecure infrastructure is open to attack by malicious individuals, organizations, and nation-states. "Protection" against the narrow segment of "crimes and attacks that are preventable by solely by dragnet surveillance" comes at the cost of criminal network penetration, identity theft, corporate espionage, credit card fraud, malware, ransomware, and spying by foreign powers. We shore up defenses against the rare (if spectacularly awful) terrorist attack at the expense of the everyday cybercrimes, which are, taken together, *far* more harmful and preventable, even if they don't make for very dramatic headlines. It's like devoting all of our law enforcement resources to stopping serial killers and leaving regular murders -- the vast majority -- uninvestigated, let alone solved, and in fact encouraging them by a declared lack of enforcement. Worse, it's allowing our enemy to dictate our actions, to provoke a change in our behavior, ethics, and values.
Perversely, dragnet surveillance is not the antidote to anything other than security, and it takes a myopic vision and tragically flawed reasoning to believe otherwise. When the government asks for the keys to everything, just say no.
A standard "facial" is hardly abuse. They're barely outside of mainstream, and many women find them erotic. As for degrading, that's subjective. Is it degrading to be mildly submissive? For people with a fragile ego, perhaps, but most of us are submissive in some form to some people every day, as a part of a normal, healthy existence. That the context is sexual rather than, say, working behind a counter doesn't magically make it wrong. When it becomes abusive or degrading is when there's a lack of consent or choice. That's also when it becomes a crime.
McDonalds have served "billions and billions." Does McDonald's taste great? Maybe if you've never had a proper burger.
Pour some fresh-ground coffee into a french press. It's a fraction of the cost, and it will be substantially closer to the best cup of coffee you've ever had than any K-cup.
Keurigs certainly have value, especially if convenience is your primary concern, but many people aren't aware of the trade-off they're making, or how much better their coffee could taste. It's comparable to the difference between canned fruit and fresh fruit.
The headline isn't the raw number, it's the improvement in detection rate, which is a substantial step forward.
I suspect that any machine learning algorithm is susceptible to being trained by attackers though, much the way 'Tay' turned into a Hitler-Loving Sex Bot. Unsupervised learning can be effective, but it's very easy to intentionally (and unintentionally) sabotage that success.
Well, no matter which party you agree with, if either, you have to admit that a large portion of that contempt is well-earned. Democracy may be better than any alternative we've tried, but that doesn't automatically make it a net positive. There must exist optimum paths to maximum happiness and fairness, but democracy limits our ability to find them in a rational and methodical manner rather than through emotional and haphazard currents of public support.
Actually, at least five methods in most markets for general access, and at least four if you don't count dial-up: Cable, DSL, 3/4G tether/dedicated, and Satellite.
Satellite is to high-speed internet as typewriters are to high-speed typing: the very worst of available options. 30GB is what I typically use in a week (and I wouldn't consider myself a heavy user), 25Mbit is 15% of the speed I get, and I pay just a touch under $60/mo. Satellite is so low bandwidth, latent, and expensive, that it shouldn't even count for the general public, especially people in cities who don't have the option to mount satellite dishes. And yes, many of those people get EITHER cable OR DSL, not both, because apartments and condominiums and even HOAs sign exclusivity agreements, not to mention entire municipalities. And even where there may be choice among mediums, there is zero choice within them. If you have Comcast cable, you have Comcast cable, not Cox, or Charter, or TWC, and that lowers the incentive for Comcast to provide competitive service.
My city is actually considering municipal fiber, and I hope we do it. I'm not thrilled about the idea of the government providing my internet connection -- if private companies are willing to bend to law enforcement and recording industry interests, how much more willing will the city be? -- but other cities have had great success, and as long as I can encrypt my connection and encourage others to do the same, municipal service seems like the lesser of evils right now.
Dunno about their target market, but I'm a "single working professional" switching to a secondary carrier (Cricket) now that AT&T is doing away with subsidies in future contracts, and letting me out of my existing contract by increasing the unlimited data fee.
It's not a highly skilled job, but it's a highly profitable industry with low labor costs as a percent of expenses, and it makes sense to pay employees commensurate with the profitability of the company, just to prevent the concentration of wealth. The alternative is "redistribution of wealth" through taxation, which nobody really likes, even people who recognize it as necessary, which ironically includes a substantial portion of the people who have accumulated that wealth and a smaller portion of the people who have suffered because of it.
My experience in a unionized workplace was... unique. It may have resulted in better pay when the contract was negotiated, but when I came on board 2 years later, there was no potential upside to joining. The CBA was already in place, so there was nothing to be gained on that front. We couldn't strike, so union dues just went to a pool of money that could never benefit us, even in theory. Further, the CBA enforced seniority in layoffs, so when the contract downsized, I was the first to go -- the company had no say in the matter. It was in a right-to-work state, so I opted not to join, and keep my ~$110/mo. that would have gone to dues. Some people begrudged me for that, but they all said they admired that I had the balls not to throw my money away. I didn't really see it as having balls... it was uncomfortable, but I wasn't going to part with my money for no potential benefit. Maybe that makes me an asshole, but I still feel like it was the right choice, and I would encourage anyone to consider carefully whether it makes sense for them to join the union, if they have a choice.
Sometimes public good and financial gain align themselves, but absolutely, titans of industry have always been involved in politics.. If anything, the tech industry has been an exception, not the rule. This might be because engineers try to apply technical solutions to social problems, but at the end of the day, social problems will require social solutions.
It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability. Cosmetic surgery is already done for a plethora of other reasons, many without truly therapeutic value other than a sense of well-being: Cleft palate. Breasts subjectively too small. Breasts subjectively too large. Scar tissue removal. Cosmetic fat removal. Skin tightening. If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.
Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry. Going outside is a valid treatment for some conditions. That's a physical treatment. Talking is a physical treatment -- perhaps the most popular.
Perhaps at some point there will exist a treatment to allow the mind to adjust to the body. I'm sure some people might elect that treatment instead. That would also be helpful for the conditions you've cited. At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity, and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.
I've seen women in the men's room (for its intended purpose), and men go into the women's room, and I, a man, have gone into the women's room as well. It's a courtesy separation, not a prohibition against "I need to shit or piss somewhere -- now." Every reasonable person understands this. They might not like it, they be incensed, they may flee the scene, but at the end of the day, they understand.
People determined to invade someone's privacy, or sexually harass, assault, or rape someone else will not be deterred by a law prohibiting their presence in a bathroom. It doesn't even begin to hold up to simple scrutiny, even if it were reasonably enforceable, which it is not, and it punishes people who actually need to use, you know, the bathroom. It's the most ridiculous fucking idea I've ever heard, or will hear this year, unless someone starts a campaign to prohibit some other bodily function that can't always be regulated, like hiccuping in public because children might be scared by the noise. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with us?
I don't think that's a very compelling argument, for two reasons:
1) The virtual and physical worlds are highly intertwined in the age of social "media." 2) Verbal/emotional abuse still affects people, regardless of the medium.
The real problem with these initiatives isn't that they're stomping out abuse, but that they are labeling things as abuse that aren't; namely things like insults made in passing, not being nice enough, etc. These things may be problems for people who wished to feel more welcome, or for companies who want to expand their customer base, but they don't rise to the level of injustice that the media would have us believe.
That's just not true. The typical course of BC pills have placebos solely because women tend to worry about being pregnant when they don't get their periods. It's possible to get placebo-free prescriptions -- Lybrel for example -- but they're unpopular for the reason stated. In fact, they may actually offer protection against endometrial carcinoma.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't necessarily have any ethical qualms with killing and eating animals, but if I could eat meat without killing an animal most of the time and save energy in the process, I'm good with that.
I think the extreme claim (of TFA, anyway) is an extinction-level event, though, particularly global warming and nuclear war. "Even human extinction isn't all that unlikely." The odds themselves seem high -- 0.5% is at least an order of magnitude too high, based on the exact same criteria the author uses -- intuition. But even if those events do occur, I think extinction is exceedingly unlikely. Humans are masters of modifying their environment and living in extreme conditions, so I believe it would take something that would make the earth completely uninhabitable for life, like a massive collision between the earth and a celestial body. Decimation of the global human population seems far more probable than extinction -- probably at least an order of magnitude more likely, if not several. That's not to say that a 90% reduction in population is likely, but extinction in the near-term is just so much more unlikely.
Indeed. Working in those mining data centers really dries the skin, and the low returns are definitely responsible for many tears being shed. I think "decades" is a stretch though.
First NBC for $12.3B, and now Dreamworks for $3B? How does a government-sanctioned monopoly have this much free capital in the first place?
Oh right. They're a government-sanctioned monopoly.
There's no reason to believe that real == continuous rather than granular.
I think too many people forget what it's like to be young. Anyone here remember *just* wanting sex? Maybe a few, but considering that men rely on their partners either primarily or exclusively for emotional support, to a far larger degree than do women, I'd say there's more to it than sex. Teaching girls that boys only want "one thing," or that sex is "wrong" only leads to the neuroses we have as a culture when it comes to sex. It's a holdover from when sex was all but guaranteed to lead to childbirth and responsibilities that people weren't ready for (for part of our history, anyway). Not that that stopped anyone, but the sentiment was at least understandable. I don't want to think about my daughter having sex, but I don't want her to feel ashamed of it, or that men are predators. That just exacerbates the gender divide and the neuroses our culture has about sex, and insults our sons in the process.
So does, say, the news.
Not surprising, since they thoroughly destroyed everything with pertinent information on it. Why would they leave the iPhone untouched unless it was -- unsurprisingly -- used only for the purpose it was issued: work. This guy (or couple) was clearly exercising opsec, not even talking to their relatives about their feelings, let alone their plans, so it would have been more surprising if they had found anything on it.
There is no right of the government to monitor communications. Before we had communications technology, it was all but impossible. The telegraph offered the first viable method for the government (and others) to spy on any and all communications, followed by the telephone, the cellphone, email, texts, etc. At each step, security was an afterthought, and so it provided a larger and larger attack surface. Governments (and others) have enjoyed the access that inattention has brought for too long. For so long, in fact, that they now view their access as an inalienable right that's being assaulted by "evil" tech companies.
The fact is that communications cannot be subject to eavesdropping by the government without also being subject to eavesdropping by criminals. The government knows this, and uses encryption to protect its own communications. The banks know this, and use encryption to protect their communications. Criminals know this, and use encryption to protect theirs. But that doesn't make criminals omnipotent. It doesn't even obstruct targeted surveillance. From bugs to keyloggers to laser microphones to tails, there are a wide array of surveillance tools and techniques to practice targeted surveillance. The problem is laziness -- the government wants to sit on its ass and let the information come to it, instead of going out and collecting it.
That's all well and good, if it works. But the downside isn't just the potential for abuse by the government, or the lack of oversight, or the intrusiveness. An insecure infrastructure is open to attack by malicious individuals, organizations, and nation-states. "Protection" against the narrow segment of "crimes and attacks that are preventable by solely by dragnet surveillance" comes at the cost of criminal network penetration, identity theft, corporate espionage, credit card fraud, malware, ransomware, and spying by foreign powers. We shore up defenses against the rare (if spectacularly awful) terrorist attack at the expense of the everyday cybercrimes, which are, taken together, *far* more harmful and preventable, even if they don't make for very dramatic headlines. It's like devoting all of our law enforcement resources to stopping serial killers and leaving regular murders -- the vast majority -- uninvestigated, let alone solved, and in fact encouraging them by a declared lack of enforcement. Worse, it's allowing our enemy to dictate our actions, to provoke a change in our behavior, ethics, and values.
Perversely, dragnet surveillance is not the antidote to anything other than security, and it takes a myopic vision and tragically flawed reasoning to believe otherwise. When the government asks for the keys to everything, just say no.
A standard "facial" is hardly abuse. They're barely outside of mainstream, and many women find them erotic. As for degrading, that's subjective. Is it degrading to be mildly submissive? For people with a fragile ego, perhaps, but most of us are submissive in some form to some people every day, as a part of a normal, healthy existence. That the context is sexual rather than, say, working behind a counter doesn't magically make it wrong. When it becomes abusive or degrading is when there's a lack of consent or choice. That's also when it becomes a crime.
I think it's fair to say that all consumed coffee is instance coffee. Abstract coffee factories are very difficult to drink.
I don't think anybody got "called out," except Keurig. The discussion was squarely focused on the product, not the person.
McDonalds have served "billions and billions." Does McDonald's taste great? Maybe if you've never had a proper burger.
Pour some fresh-ground coffee into a french press. It's a fraction of the cost, and it will be substantially closer to the best cup of coffee you've ever had than any K-cup.
Keurigs certainly have value, especially if convenience is your primary concern, but many people aren't aware of the trade-off they're making, or how much better their coffee could taste. It's comparable to the difference between canned fruit and fresh fruit.
Which is the threat, the drone or the airliner??
The headline isn't the raw number, it's the improvement in detection rate, which is a substantial step forward.
I suspect that any machine learning algorithm is susceptible to being trained by attackers though, much the way 'Tay' turned into a Hitler-Loving Sex Bot. Unsupervised learning can be effective, but it's very easy to intentionally (and unintentionally) sabotage that success.
Well, no matter which party you agree with, if either, you have to admit that a large portion of that contempt is well-earned. Democracy may be better than any alternative we've tried, but that doesn't automatically make it a net positive. There must exist optimum paths to maximum happiness and fairness, but democracy limits our ability to find them in a rational and methodical manner rather than through emotional and haphazard currents of public support.
Actually, at least five methods in most markets for general access, and at least four if you don't count dial-up: Cable, DSL, 3/4G tether/dedicated, and Satellite.
Satellite is to high-speed internet as typewriters are to high-speed typing: the very worst of available options. 30GB is what I typically use in a week (and I wouldn't consider myself a heavy user), 25Mbit is 15% of the speed I get, and I pay just a touch under $60/mo. Satellite is so low bandwidth, latent, and expensive, that it shouldn't even count for the general public, especially people in cities who don't have the option to mount satellite dishes. And yes, many of those people get EITHER cable OR DSL, not both, because apartments and condominiums and even HOAs sign exclusivity agreements, not to mention entire municipalities. And even where there may be choice among mediums, there is zero choice within them. If you have Comcast cable, you have Comcast cable, not Cox, or Charter, or TWC, and that lowers the incentive for Comcast to provide competitive service.
My city is actually considering municipal fiber, and I hope we do it. I'm not thrilled about the idea of the government providing my internet connection -- if private companies are willing to bend to law enforcement and recording industry interests, how much more willing will the city be? -- but other cities have had great success, and as long as I can encrypt my connection and encourage others to do the same, municipal service seems like the lesser of evils right now.
Dunno about their target market, but I'm a "single working professional" switching to a secondary carrier (Cricket) now that AT&T is doing away with subsidies in future contracts, and letting me out of my existing contract by increasing the unlimited data fee.
It's not a highly skilled job, but it's a highly profitable industry with low labor costs as a percent of expenses, and it makes sense to pay employees commensurate with the profitability of the company, just to prevent the concentration of wealth. The alternative is "redistribution of wealth" through taxation, which nobody really likes, even people who recognize it as necessary, which ironically includes a substantial portion of the people who have accumulated that wealth and a smaller portion of the people who have suffered because of it.
My experience in a unionized workplace was... unique. It may have resulted in better pay when the contract was negotiated, but when I came on board 2 years later, there was no potential upside to joining. The CBA was already in place, so there was nothing to be gained on that front. We couldn't strike, so union dues just went to a pool of money that could never benefit us, even in theory. Further, the CBA enforced seniority in layoffs, so when the contract downsized, I was the first to go -- the company had no say in the matter. It was in a right-to-work state, so I opted not to join, and keep my ~$110/mo. that would have gone to dues. Some people begrudged me for that, but they all said they admired that I had the balls not to throw my money away. I didn't really see it as having balls... it was uncomfortable, but I wasn't going to part with my money for no potential benefit. Maybe that makes me an asshole, but I still feel like it was the right choice, and I would encourage anyone to consider carefully whether it makes sense for them to join the union, if they have a choice.
Sometimes public good and financial gain align themselves, but absolutely, titans of industry have always been involved in politics.. If anything, the tech industry has been an exception, not the rule. This might be because engineers try to apply technical solutions to social problems, but at the end of the day, social problems will require social solutions.
It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability. Cosmetic surgery is already done for a plethora of other reasons, many without truly therapeutic value other than a sense of well-being: Cleft palate. Breasts subjectively too small. Breasts subjectively too large. Scar tissue removal. Cosmetic fat removal. Skin tightening. If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.
Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry. Going outside is a valid treatment for some conditions. That's a physical treatment. Talking is a physical treatment -- perhaps the most popular.
Perhaps at some point there will exist a treatment to allow the mind to adjust to the body. I'm sure some people might elect that treatment instead. That would also be helpful for the conditions you've cited. At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity, and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.
I've seen women in the men's room (for its intended purpose), and men go into the women's room, and I, a man, have gone into the women's room as well. It's a courtesy separation, not a prohibition against "I need to shit or piss somewhere -- now." Every reasonable person understands this. They might not like it, they be incensed, they may flee the scene, but at the end of the day, they understand.
People determined to invade someone's privacy, or sexually harass, assault, or rape someone else will not be deterred by a law prohibiting their presence in a bathroom. It doesn't even begin to hold up to simple scrutiny, even if it were reasonably enforceable, which it is not, and it punishes people who actually need to use, you know, the bathroom. It's the most ridiculous fucking idea I've ever heard, or will hear this year, unless someone starts a campaign to prohibit some other bodily function that can't always be regulated, like hiccuping in public because children might be scared by the noise. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with us?
Well, no because the two people are being asshats.
Well, yeah. Welcome to why people lie: so they don't look (or feel) like asshats.
I don't think that's a very compelling argument, for two reasons:
1) The virtual and physical worlds are highly intertwined in the age of social "media."
2) Verbal/emotional abuse still affects people, regardless of the medium.
The real problem with these initiatives isn't that they're stomping out abuse, but that they are labeling things as abuse that aren't; namely things like insults made in passing, not being nice enough, etc. These things may be problems for people who wished to feel more welcome, or for companies who want to expand their customer base, but they don't rise to the level of injustice that the media would have us believe.
That's just not true. The typical course of BC pills have placebos solely because women tend to worry about being pregnant when they don't get their periods. It's possible to get placebo-free prescriptions -- Lybrel for example -- but they're unpopular for the reason stated. In fact, they may actually offer protection against endometrial carcinoma.