Oh we read it, we were just able to read it without rose colored glasses and see it for what it really was, an introverted manchild trying to push his views on everyone else at the expense of equality.
You mean that arguing for the advancement and development of the current model for equality and inclusion on an internal forum specifically created for those that actively want to participate in discussing the advancement and development of the current model for equality and inclusion constitutes "an introverted manchild trying to push his views on everyone else at the expense of equality"? That's a bold play, and an interesting twist on the subject.
He used the same sort of assumptions and bullshit statistical analysis that new age white supremacists use
Quite a few posts have gone up already on how Damore was slandered because he came to a forbidden conclusion. You provide us all with a highly accurate case study on this via the lower forms of guilt by association. The whole statistical analysis -> used by white supremacists -> therefor anyone using statistical analysis is a white supremacist is quite charming in its crudeness, but not overly convincing once you've successfully completed the fifth grade.
Nonetheless, thank you for providing us with this example.
TV piracy services are being used by about 6.5 percent of North American households with broadband access, potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.
potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.
potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year
potentially
No. Just no. Not a potential no, a solid diamond-hard no. Like, seriously Chuck Norris testicles-hard no.
Every study ever on the subject concludes a solid 'no'. Even the frikkin RIAA/MPAA alliance of Evil that has supplanted Satan as the goto source of pure Evil hasn't found a single study to support that losses from poor services translate into increased sales if you muscle the competition out.
This is why we don't invite mathematicians to parties.
These guys have absolutely no clue what the hell they're on about. They start out grossly misunderstanding how aging works and what its role in biology is, then go on to grossly misunderstand how cancer is generated. Then they grossly misunderstand how replication works, followed by grossly misunderstanding evolution (strong enough? Who at a university+ level would say something like that?).
Any freshman biologist can answer all these questions easily.
Aging is the result of a) your body adapting to its current needs (growing, reproduction etc) and b) your genetic material accumulating errors from the replication used to build new cells. This is not a theory, this is not "controversial", this has been the settled conclusion for a long time. If the mathematicians at Arizona can't pick up a textbook...
The carcinogenesis process is also well understood (though there are many details, such as the newfound roles of both micro- and lnc- RNA, that are still a mystery). There are X number of established ways, all involving knocking out tumor-preventing pathways or hyper-activating growth pathways. It is not a result of aging, but of the previously mentioned genetic errors that come with replication + plus external factors that may play some role (infection with HR-HPV is considered a requirement for cervical cancer, and plays a major role in some other cancers including penile, vulvar, anal, head, and neck). If it were a result of aging, or if cells got "hyper-competitive" later down the road, we wouldn't see kids with leukemia, nor teenagers with melanoma (from tanning all day long, something that causes massive buildup of genetic errors in the skin cells).
Our cells never actually wind down. They do the best they can with the resources they are given. As our machinery accrues more and more faults over the years, the functionality deteriorates. Just like an 8 year old computer will have some problems and some 'ticks', so too will cells based on old DNA. But there is no in-built wind-down parameter, there is no "give-up and die" gene. At most we have something called telomeres attached to our chromosomes that tells us how many times the chromosome has been replicated, giving an indicator of how "reliable" the chromosome DNA is. Extending the telomeres leads them to be used for longer. This allows more errors to accrue in the chromosome, which increases the risk of a cancer blocking pathway on the chromosome to be knocked out. Hence, if you want to live forever, you have to both extend the telomere as well as prevent replication errors.
And to answer the final (ridiculous) assertion -
But this model of aging adds a new element to the existing hypothesis -- even if evolution did select for eternal youth, competition inside our own bodies would see us to an inevitable grave./quote
There is only "competition" inside the body when something has already gone horribly wrong. There are more than 10 "anti-compete clause" pathways active in each cell. If a cell "competes", it will receive an apoptosis signal to commit suicide, and it will be destroyed by the body's own immune system. It is only when these anti-compete pathways have been destroyed already that any classic evolution-based competition can occur.
In short, these guys really should have asked a biologist before spouting nonsense.
Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?
I get why stores would want to price products at $99.95, but since when did Law Enforcement need incentive for fines? Are they trying to reach a quota by having a sale? Is it this week only and then back to $129.95 a pop?
You mean like the first past the goal post model for presidential elections, or the majority votes for congressional candidates? Or the judgement by a jury of peers? Or the long process of amending the constitution where a twothirds majority must vote in favor? Or the Supreme Court where a majority vote is needed?
I don't doubt you have a valid point, but I do question that it is as permeating as these examples.
"Tyranny of the majority" is more commonly named 'Democracy', and is by some strange people considered "a nice thing to have". But if you don't like it, you are always free to try your hand somewhere where this "tyranny of the majority" is not employed. I hear Somalia and Angola are both doing great. Just remember to keep your passport safe.
But yes, as has been mentioned in many places, making it an opt-out feature would be the decent choice.
It's also not in Google's interest to make such core functionality unusable by people suffering from psychological diseases, as it both needlessly restricts their market/data-farm, and comes across as extremely insensitive
How far gone must you be to consider a calorie counter "extremely insensitive"? If you find the mere existence of a calorie counter extremely insensitive, the problem is not with the calorie counter, I assure you. I also assert that this thinking is far removed from the majority, and far removed from any rational demographic. The only people that would possibly complain about the existence of a calorie counter can accurately and reasonably be labelled as SJWs. Anyone else would, even if in disagreement, merely shrug their shoulders and move on.
If any part of their service potentially makes people feel bad (shamed, judged, or, god forbid, triggered), there's a chance that some percentage of them will choose a different service next time, which means less data for them to sell.
If they aren't walking enough as is, "shaming" them into not walking more doesn't have any effect whatsoever. At the same time, consider all those people that *would* benefit from seeing how many calories they could lose.
Not everyone must conform to the wishes of the very small subset of T2DMs that somehow managed to get offended by seeing a calorie counter. Sometimes we have to live with not having the world shaped exactly the way we want it after all, and we might even grow as people from the experience.
This is a black and white case. There are no moral ambiguities, no reasoning that could make it appear less heinous. This is exactly what we have maximum penalties for.
Annul the patents, revoke the charter for Allergen, arrest the board. There is no other response possible. When foreign nations do not respect your sovereignty you declare war; when a company so flagrantly shows that they care not one iota for your laws or for your people, you respond in kind.
Take everything - it is in the best interest of your country, your population, and your democracy.
So what you're saying is it would take more area-capable firearms to combat this problem. I agree.
If only Congress would allow concealed missile carry then someone could have launched a Tomahawk towards the general area of the shooter before he managed to kill so many.
No, this is not terrorism (yet). There is no ideological or political separation for discriminating between the victims and the perpetrator(s). If the shooter has left some manifesto or similar behind it may be classified as an act of terrorism later, but nothing of that sort has as of yet been discovered.
Why would you call this terrorism? Why is it relevant?
Hey guys, I was a bit concerned about this whole thing, so I spoke to AT&T. They said they're doing this to better serve their customers, so we have nothing to worry 'bout.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked.
And he's related to Google. He's the second-distant uncle-in-law Karl von Himmentropp-Google by marriage to Susan Google in 1988.
I would expect this from an AC, not someone that at least pretends to have an informed opinion.
Did someone steal your Snickers?
Oh we read it, we were just able to read it without rose colored glasses and see it for what it really was, an introverted manchild trying to push his views on everyone else at the expense of equality.
You mean that arguing for the advancement and development of the current model for equality and inclusion on an internal forum specifically created for those that actively want to participate in discussing the advancement and development of the current model for equality and inclusion constitutes "an introverted manchild trying to push his views on everyone else at the expense of equality"?
That's a bold play, and an interesting twist on the subject.
He used the same sort of assumptions and bullshit statistical analysis that new age white supremacists use
Quite a few posts have gone up already on how Damore was slandered because he came to a forbidden conclusion. You provide us all with a highly accurate case study on this via the lower forms of guilt by association. The whole statistical analysis -> used by white supremacists -> therefor anyone using statistical analysis is a white supremacist is quite charming in its crudeness, but not overly convincing once you've successfully completed the fifth grade.
Nonetheless, thank you for providing us with this example.
TV piracy services are being used by about 6.5 percent of North American households with broadband access, potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.
potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year, a new analysis found.
potentially costing legitimate TV providers billions of dollars a year
potentially
No. Just no. Not a potential no, a solid diamond-hard no. Like, seriously Chuck Norris testicles-hard no.
Every study ever on the subject concludes a solid 'no'. Even the frikkin RIAA/MPAA alliance of Evil that has supplanted Satan as the goto source of pure Evil hasn't found a single study to support that losses from poor services translate into increased sales if you muscle the competition out.
No.
This is why we don't invite mathematicians to parties.
These guys have absolutely no clue what the hell they're on about. They start out grossly misunderstanding how aging works and what its role in biology is, then go on to grossly misunderstand how cancer is generated. Then they grossly misunderstand how replication works, followed by grossly misunderstanding evolution (strong enough? Who at a university+ level would say something like that?).
Any freshman biologist can answer all these questions easily.
Aging is the result of a) your body adapting to its current needs (growing, reproduction etc) and b) your genetic material accumulating errors from the replication used to build new cells. This is not a theory, this is not "controversial", this has been the settled conclusion for a long time. If the mathematicians at Arizona can't pick up a textbook...
The carcinogenesis process is also well understood (though there are many details, such as the newfound roles of both micro- and lnc- RNA, that are still a mystery).
There are X number of established ways, all involving knocking out tumor-preventing pathways or hyper-activating growth pathways. It is not a result of aging, but of the previously mentioned genetic errors that come with replication + plus external factors that may play some role (infection with HR-HPV is considered a requirement for cervical cancer, and plays a major role in some other cancers including penile, vulvar, anal, head, and neck). If it were a result of aging, or if cells got "hyper-competitive" later down the road, we wouldn't see kids with leukemia, nor teenagers with melanoma (from tanning all day long, something that causes massive buildup of genetic errors in the skin cells).
Our cells never actually wind down. They do the best they can with the resources they are given. As our machinery accrues more and more faults over the years, the functionality deteriorates. Just like an 8 year old computer will have some problems and some 'ticks', so too will cells based on old DNA. But there is no in-built wind-down parameter, there is no "give-up and die" gene.
At most we have something called telomeres attached to our chromosomes that tells us how many times the chromosome has been replicated, giving an indicator of how "reliable" the chromosome DNA is. Extending the telomeres leads them to be used for longer. This allows more errors to accrue in the chromosome, which increases the risk of a cancer blocking pathway on the chromosome to be knocked out. Hence, if you want to live forever, you have to both extend the telomere as well as prevent replication errors.
And to answer the final (ridiculous) assertion -
But this model of aging adds a new element to the existing hypothesis -- even if evolution did select for eternal youth, competition inside our own bodies would see us to an inevitable grave. /quote
There is only "competition" inside the body when something has already gone horribly wrong. There are more than 10 "anti-compete clause" pathways active in each cell. If a cell "competes", it will receive an apoptosis signal to commit suicide, and it will be destroyed by the body's own immune system. It is only when these anti-compete pathways have been destroyed already that any classic evolution-based competition can occur.
In short, these guys really should have asked a biologist before spouting nonsense.
Ok. Did Ajit come with a return address?
Am I the only one that read the topic as "Scientists find a better way to watch testicles on your apples"?
Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?
I get why stores would want to price products at $99.95, but since when did Law Enforcement need incentive for fines? Are they trying to reach a quota by having a sale? Is it this week only and then back to $129.95 a pop?
He means the botnet he paid to write agreeing posts for him.
Did anyone involved in this from the Arkansas side ever stop to ask the simple question -
Why?
It can be used in such extreme cases without problem (unless the guy is 4m wide or a pyramid), but yes, its deprecated.
This is what we in technical terms would call a major oopsie.
You mean like the first past the goal post model for presidential elections, or the majority votes for congressional candidates? Or the judgement by a jury of peers? Or the long process of amending the constitution where a twothirds majority must vote in favor? Or the Supreme Court where a majority vote is needed?
I don't doubt you have a valid point, but I do question that it is as permeating as these examples.
"Tyranny of the majority" is more commonly named 'Democracy', and is by some strange people considered "a nice thing to have". But if you don't like it, you are always free to try your hand somewhere where this "tyranny of the majority" is not employed. I hear Somalia and Angola are both doing great. Just remember to keep your passport safe.
But yes, as has been mentioned in many places, making it an opt-out feature would be the decent choice.
It's also not in Google's interest to make such core functionality unusable by people suffering from psychological diseases, as it both needlessly restricts their market/data-farm, and comes across as extremely insensitive
How far gone must you be to consider a calorie counter "extremely insensitive"?
If you find the mere existence of a calorie counter extremely insensitive, the problem is not with the calorie counter, I assure you.
I also assert that this thinking is far removed from the majority, and far removed from any rational demographic. The only people that would possibly complain about the existence of a calorie counter can accurately and reasonably be labelled as SJWs. Anyone else would, even if in disagreement, merely shrug their shoulders and move on.
What did middle managers and telephone sanitisers do to you!?
If any part of their service potentially makes people feel bad (shamed, judged, or, god forbid, triggered), there's a chance that some percentage of them will choose a different service next time, which means less data for them to sell.
You forgot "responsible for their own actions".
Actually, all of Google's tracking information on the demographic buying pink hairdye would be lost.
If they aren't walking enough as is, "shaming" them into not walking more doesn't have any effect whatsoever. At the same time, consider all those people that *would* benefit from seeing how many calories they could lose.
Not everyone must conform to the wishes of the very small subset of T2DMs that somehow managed to get offended by seeing a calorie counter. Sometimes we have to live with not having the world shaped exactly the way we want it after all, and we might even grow as people from the experience.
This is a black and white case. There are no moral ambiguities, no reasoning that could make it appear less heinous. This is exactly what we have maximum penalties for.
Annul the patents, revoke the charter for Allergen, arrest the board. There is no other response possible. When foreign nations do not respect your sovereignty you declare war; when a company so flagrantly shows that they care not one iota for your laws or for your people, you respond in kind.
Take everything - it is in the best interest of your country, your population, and your democracy.
So what you're saying is it would take more area-capable firearms to combat this problem. I agree.
If only Congress would allow concealed missile carry then someone could have launched a Tomahawk towards the general area of the shooter before he managed to kill so many.
No, this is not terrorism (yet). There is no ideological or political separation for discriminating between the victims and the perpetrator(s). If the shooter has left some manifesto or similar behind it may be classified as an act of terrorism later, but nothing of that sort has as of yet been discovered.
Why would you call this terrorism? Why is it relevant?
Hey guys, I was a bit concerned about this whole thing, so I spoke to AT&T.
They said they're doing this to better serve their customers, so we have nothing to worry 'bout.
Yay, now I can have twice the detail in my death threats and witch hunts.
To the pitch forks!