If you have a blind spot your mirrors are adjusted wrong.
You do realize that your advice only moves the blind spot, right? If I can't see the edge of my own car, that means the blind spot is immediately next to my car -- where a pedestrian or bicyclist might be.
but come on now, rape requires force, in the mechanical sense.
Only in the manner that "force, in the mechanical sense" is necessary for all movement. (Including cyber-sex; masturbation is movement and involved mechanical force.)
Only a minority of rapes involve force in the sense of violence or the threat thereof. Most involve alcohol or other drugs. (Mostly alcohol. "Date rape drugs" are about 90% myth.) This is because the people doing most of the raping are repeat offenders who carefully plan their actions. They're not leaping out of the bushes onto strangers; they're planning an attack on an acquaintance, "friend", or family member, and they're smart enough to know that it's a heck of a lot easier if the victim is intoxicated.
It's okay to it, because they agreed to it to get a free service.
First, the suit alleges that they did not so agree because the TOS are not clear, and furthermore that they can't agree on behalf of their correspondents. (TFA: ""Google has cited no case that stands for the proposition that users who send emails impliedly consent to interceptions and use of their communications by third parties other than the intended recipient of the email," Koh wrote.") Second, if Google is not permitted under wiretap law to eavesdrop, that supersedes any part of a user contract or agreement.
Bing is just one sourse they use of many. "DuckDuckGo gets its results from over one hundred sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, which are stored in our own index), Yahoo! (through BOSS), Yandex, WolframAlpha, and Bing."
I find I still have to fall back to Google search occasionally.
If it is just for the purpose of serving relevant adverts to put before your eyeballs, on terms which you have accepted in using the service, then yes. If it is for tracking your movements and activity before hunting you down and killing you, then no (or at least not without a warrant)
And why is building a privacy-invasive model of your mind in an attempt to control your thoughts and behavior so such more acceptable than physical violence?
I don't see any a priori reason why it's ok to invade someone's privacy and the privacy of their corespondents in order to make ads displayed to them more "relevant". Please explain your reasoning. (And no, the fact that it's more profitable to Google is not a justification.)
Effective allocation of capital is absolutely critical to an efficient economy.
This has nothing to do with effective allocation of capital; the effective allocation of capital does not change on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis.
It is a sine qua non of free societies. It is why centrally planned economies don't work in competition with market economies.
During WWII, the U.S. economy was, in effect, centrally planned -- government spending hit a peak of over 50% of GDP. A centrally planned economy beat the Nazis and developed atomic weapons. And a centrally planned economy, the USSR, took a peasant nation and made it into a global superpower that won the space race. I'm not a fan of planned economies but it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be
Labor and creativity are important too, but they don't turn into meaningful economic activity without capital.
Only because we have a system where labor (which includes creativity, intellectual labor is labor too (one of Marx's bigger blunders was neglecting that)) doesn't get access to capital without allowing capitalists their parasitic share. We can have capital without capitalists; we can't have labor without laborers.
The OP is suggesting that many on this site do not have a background that renders them capable of participating in the debate.
If people need a "background" (beyond a decent general education) to discuss your art, your art sucks: it is ipso facto a game for a self-satisfied group of mutual admirers, a pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk
"How clever of you, oh Artist, to create a piece that only makes sense to those of us intimately familiar with Frazer's The Golden Bough and with the films of Jean-Luc Godard!" "Oh, how clever of you, oh Audience, to pick up the references I concealed in my work!"
We are already over-supplied with terrible art, that which has nothing to say and attempts to compensate by saying it obscurely.
Beer guts ain't fat, that's not how your body works...Beer guts are enlarged, hardened livers
Citation needed.
"An excess of visceral fat is known as central obesity, the "pot belly" or "beer belly" effect, in which the abdomen protrudes excessively....A study has shown that alcohol consumption is directly associated with waist circumference and with a higher risk of abdominal obesity in men, but not in women, in the present population." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_gut#Relationship_with_Alcohol_Consumption
"Itâ(TM)s not necessarily beer but too many calories that can turn your trim waistline into a belly that protrudes over your pants. Any kind of calories -- whether from alcohol, sugary beverages, or oversized portions of food -- can increase belly fat. However, alcohol does seem to have a particular association with fat in the midsection." -- http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-beer-and-your-belly
Yes, ascites is a real thing, but it's not what the term "beer belly" refers to.
Being able to fix a stuck wheel has some value, as does being able to make new instruments on the scene from parts in the lab.
If you can send 50 or 100 probes for the price of a manned mission, having humans there to make repairs is pretty pointless. "Hmm, send a human to fix that stuck rover, or send a few dozen more rovers?"
But that line of thought presupposes that gathering data is the only thing humans care about.
If we're talking about doing science in space, gathering data is the only thing we care about.
If people want to do art or religion or something along those lines in space, fine, just don't pretend it's science. Let those space missions compete for arts or religion funding.
While I will agree that there is considerable "low hanging fruit" in terms of very legitimate science that can be done by sending robotic probes, there will reach a point in that research where having actual people physically there will make a whole lot of sense.
For the foreseeable future, the cost of sending humans beyond Earth orbit and bringing them back safely will always be too high compared to robotic probes. That the idea of disregarding the "and bringing them back safely" part is being discussed as a semi-serious proposal shows only that for some folks, manned space flight has nothing to do with rational cost/benefit analysis of scientific data gathering. For them it is instead some sort of near-religious holy quest. ("Some folks" being a general comment and not directed at you, Teancum.)
There is a reason why automated probes don't go running around Antarctica, even though sending people there happens at considerable expense.
Considerable expense?! Compared to even LEO, Antarctica is free. During the summer months there are 5,000 people there. Call me when we can support 5,000 people in LEO, much less out of range of resupply rockets. I should live so long. (Tell you want, I'd settle for living (in good health and the other usual long life caveats) until the population in orbit reaches 1,000, same as Antarctica in winter.)
With the distances involved, bandwidth for sending data can be a considerable problem.
The bandwidth problem does not change when a human is transmitting versus a robot. It is useless to station a human in space if they cannot report back, right? (Unless one assign some metaphysical value to "human eyes have seen such-and-such" -- but that's not a science mission, it's religious questing.)
Some local synthesis of the data...can take place in an automated fashion, eventually even that will eventually need to have somebody physically there to evaluate all of that data.
On what basis do you believe that a human could evaluate that data better than an expert system designed for the task? Especially one with continual (though time-lagged) feedback from Earth?
A good argument could be made that there is no need for human researchers to go for at least a century or more.
In a century, if we're still a technological society with a presence in space, we'll have robots capable of out-performing humans at any given task for which we might send humans into space.
Thrill-seekers (doin' it for the lulz), performance artists (doin' it for the "inspiration"), and religious questers (doin' it to martyr themselves doing what a robot could do more cheaply) aside, anything beyond Luna -- quite possibly, anything beyond LEO -- will always be for robots.
Could you seriously justify ending another person's life yourself, if you didn't believe in an afterlife for them?
If that person is trying to kill me? Yes. If necessary in self-defense or the defense of another innocent person, ending an attacker's life is justified. And I teach people how to do it.
I don't believe in an "afterlife" (in the usual sense of that term).
I don't see any relation between these two concepts.
I'd be willing to bet money that 90 percent of you would wilt like a daisy dropped in Death Valley.
Maybe so. One never knows until one's in that position.
OTOH, I do know that when the "Communications Decency Act" passed, I and a whole bunch of other people got pissed off and engaged in civil disobedience (strong language NSFW) at the (small, but we didn't really know at the time) risk of federal prosecution. I was younger and more full of fire then, perhaps; but I like to think that if I received a "National Security Letter I'd still have the testicular fortitude to post it far and wide, snail-mail out as many copies as I could, stand on the street corner handing them out to passers-by until they came to get me.
And then? Go out in a blaze of glory, or let them drag me off to prison in hopes of being a continual embarrassment to them? I don't know. Maybe that's when I'd wilt and say, "ooh, so sorry." But I hope I'd still stick a thumb in their eye first.
The actual problem is an economic system that leads to people growing rice almost exclusively: "Beyond that though, poorly-fed people are unlikely to be able to absorb beta-carotene even when they eat golden rice. To use it, they need a diverse diet, including green leafy vegetables. But the sorts of vegetables people used to be able to find have declined in number as the green revolution of the 60s and 70s emphasised monocultures of new varieties. Household consumption of vegetables in India has fallen by 12% in two decades." -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3122923.stm
Golden rice only contributes to the problem (economic and ecological) of monoculture. Growing carrots, sweet potatoes,mangoes, papaya, or other vitamin-A rich crops is a much more sensible answer -- unless one is devoted to the current exploitative system.
So in your model how does a site like YouTube work?
Why should a site like YouTube be needed? If everyone had to host their own video content, perhaps we'd have come to useful video standards long ago? Certainly having the majority of on-line content in one place is useful for the copyright cartel, but what does it do for the rest of us?
The other alternative would be to have ads, but not have them fill up every available space. If ads were rare and tasteful, say a single simpIe text link on each page, I wouldn't need Adblock Plus. Heck, if in addition to that they didn't track people, I might even click on one once in a while.
Instead they're so common and obnoxious that the web is useless without ad blockers. And in 20 years of using the web (holy shit -- yes, I wrote my first HTML in 1993), I can count on my fingers the number of ads I've clicked.
but even their interlibrary loan is really weak (I used to ask things like, "can you get me a book on sword metallurgy?" / "no", and eventually gave up)
That's not really how ILL works. You have to request a specific title. (Try Worldcat to find one.) My local library was able to get me anything I asked for that was in a library collection in the U.S. -- I was doing some historical research and asked for some pretty oddball texts.
If you go in with a title and the librarians won't look it up to see if it's available for ILL, they're not doing their job: send a note to your county or city library director and your councilperson.
That said, yes, if I think I might look at a book twice, I'll often just purchase a used copy from Powell's. (Certainly not from the the evil twits at Amazon.)
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that your advice only moves the blind spot, right? If I can't see the edge of my own car, that means the blind spot is immediately next to my car -- where a pedestrian or bicyclist might be.
Only in the manner that "force, in the mechanical sense" is necessary for all movement. (Including cyber-sex; masturbation is movement and involved mechanical force.)
Only a minority of rapes involve force in the sense of violence or the threat thereof. Most involve alcohol or other drugs. (Mostly alcohol. "Date rape drugs" are about 90% myth.) This is because the people doing most of the raping are repeat offenders who carefully plan their actions. They're not leaping out of the bushes onto strangers; they're planning an attack on an acquaintance, "friend", or family member, and they're smart enough to know that it's a heck of a lot easier if the victim is intoxicated.
First, the suit alleges that they did not so agree because the TOS are not clear, and furthermore that they can't agree on behalf of their correspondents. (TFA: ""Google has cited no case that stands for the proposition that users who send emails impliedly consent to interceptions and use of their communications by third parties other than the intended recipient of the email," Koh wrote.") Second, if Google is not permitted under wiretap law to eavesdrop, that supersedes any part of a user contract or agreement.
The wiretap law apparently says otherwise, which is why this has come up.
Yes, as a practical matter, don't assume e-mail to be private. The question here, however, is legal, not practical/crypographic.
Bing is just one sourse they use of many. "DuckDuckGo gets its results from over one hundred sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, which are stored in our own index), Yahoo! (through BOSS), Yandex, WolframAlpha, and Bing."
Use StartPage instead, it proxies Google results.
In case anyone doesn't know, you can turn that off. Also, I advise getting on the "extended service release" (ESR) track.
And why is building a privacy-invasive model of your mind in an attempt to control your thoughts and behavior so such more acceptable than physical violence?
I don't see any a priori reason why it's ok to invade someone's privacy and the privacy of their corespondents in order to make ads displayed to them more "relevant". Please explain your reasoning. (And no, the fact that it's more profitable to Google is not a justification.)
This has nothing to do with effective allocation of capital; the effective allocation of capital does not change on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis.
During WWII, the U.S. economy was, in effect, centrally planned -- government spending hit a peak of over 50% of GDP. A centrally planned economy beat the Nazis and developed atomic weapons. And a centrally planned economy, the USSR, took a peasant nation and made it into a global superpower that won the space race. I'm not a fan of planned economies but it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be
Only because we have a system where labor (which includes creativity, intellectual labor is labor too (one of Marx's bigger blunders was neglecting that)) doesn't get access to capital without allowing capitalists their parasitic share. We can have capital without capitalists; we can't have labor without laborers.
Calvin and Hobbes -- as is often the case -- said it best many years ago: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/10
If people need a "background" (beyond a decent general education) to discuss your art, your art sucks: it is ipso facto a game for a self-satisfied group of mutual admirers, a pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk
"How clever of you, oh Artist, to create a piece that only makes sense to those of us intimately familiar with Frazer's The Golden Bough and with the films of Jean-Luc Godard!" "Oh, how clever of you, oh Audience, to pick up the references I concealed in my work!"
We are already over-supplied with terrible art, that which has nothing to say and attempts to compensate by saying it obscurely.
Is this such as case? Dunno.
Is this some sort of inside joke? A reference to a Time Cube-style crackpot of whom I'm not aware?
Oh dear. I suspect you're serious.
Citation needed.
"An excess of visceral fat is known as central obesity, the "pot belly" or "beer belly" effect, in which the abdomen protrudes excessively....A study has shown that alcohol consumption is directly associated with waist circumference and with a higher risk of abdominal obesity in men, but not in women, in the present population." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_gut#Relationship_with_Alcohol_Consumption
"Itâ(TM)s not necessarily beer but too many calories that can turn your trim waistline into a belly that protrudes over your pants. Any kind of calories -- whether from alcohol, sugary beverages, or oversized portions of food -- can increase belly fat. However, alcohol does seem to have a particular association with fat in the midsection." -- http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-beer-and-your-belly
Yes, ascites is a real thing, but it's not what the term "beer belly" refers to.
Thank you for demonstrating the point that Americans do not study history.
If we studied history in the USA, we'd have left parties. Instead we study Indoctrination Into American Exceptionalism.
If you can send 50 or 100 probes for the price of a manned mission, having humans there to make repairs is pretty pointless. "Hmm, send a human to fix that stuck rover, or send a few dozen more rovers?"
If we're talking about doing science in space, gathering data is the only thing we care about.
If people want to do art or religion or something along those lines in space, fine, just don't pretend it's science. Let those space missions compete for arts or religion funding.
For the foreseeable future, the cost of sending humans beyond Earth orbit and bringing them back safely will always be too high compared to robotic probes. That the idea of disregarding the "and bringing them back safely" part is being discussed as a semi-serious proposal shows only that for some folks, manned space flight has nothing to do with rational cost/benefit analysis of scientific data gathering. For them it is instead some sort of near-religious holy quest. ("Some folks" being a general comment and not directed at you, Teancum.)
Considerable expense?! Compared to even LEO, Antarctica is free. During the summer months there are 5,000 people there. Call me when we can support 5,000 people in LEO, much less out of range of resupply rockets. I should live so long. (Tell you want, I'd settle for living (in good health and the other usual long life caveats) until the population in orbit reaches 1,000, same as Antarctica in winter.)
The bandwidth problem does not change when a human is transmitting versus a robot. It is useless to station a human in space if they cannot report back, right? (Unless one assign some metaphysical value to "human eyes have seen such-and-such" -- but that's not a science mission, it's religious questing.)
On what basis do you believe that a human could evaluate that data better than an expert system designed for the task? Especially one with continual (though time-lagged) feedback from Earth?
In a century, if we're still a technological society with a presence in space, we'll have robots capable of out-performing humans at any given task for which we might send humans into space.
Thrill-seekers (doin' it for the lulz), performance artists (doin' it for the "inspiration"), and religious questers (doin' it to martyr themselves doing what a robot could do more cheaply) aside, anything beyond Luna -- quite possibly, anything beyond LEO -- will always be for robots.
If that person is trying to kill me? Yes. If necessary in self-defense or the defense of another innocent person, ending an attacker's life is justified. And I teach people how to do it.
I don't believe in an "afterlife" (in the usual sense of that term).
I don't see any relation between these two concepts.
I know how much bandwidth I'm paying for.
If an ISP cannot supply the bandwidth it has promised, if it has oversubscribed, than it should be prosecuted for the fraud it has committed.
Maybe so. One never knows until one's in that position.
OTOH, I do know that when the "Communications Decency Act" passed, I and a whole bunch of other people got pissed off and engaged in civil disobedience (strong language NSFW) at the (small, but we didn't really know at the time) risk of federal prosecution. I was younger and more full of fire then, perhaps; but I like to think that if I received a "National Security Letter I'd still have the testicular fortitude to post it far and wide, snail-mail out as many copies as I could, stand on the street corner handing them out to passers-by until they came to get me.
And then? Go out in a blaze of glory, or let them drag me off to prison in hopes of being a continual embarrassment to them? I don't know. Maybe that's when I'd wilt and say, "ooh, so sorry." But I hope I'd still stick a thumb in their eye first.
Of course we know what comes after death. Rot. Seriously, go look at some dead critters. Not much mystery.
You have confused "race" with "national origin".
Actually many of the people with vitamin A deficiency live in Africa, in areas not known as rice country.
The actual problem is an economic system that leads to people growing rice almost exclusively: "Beyond that though, poorly-fed people are unlikely to be able to absorb beta-carotene even when they eat golden rice. To use it, they need a diverse diet, including green leafy vegetables. But the sorts of vegetables people used to be able to find have declined in number as the green revolution of the 60s and 70s emphasised monocultures of new varieties. Household consumption of vegetables in India has fallen by 12% in two decades." -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3122923.stm
Golden rice only contributes to the problem (economic and ecological) of monoculture. Growing carrots, sweet potatoes,mangoes, papaya, or other vitamin-A rich crops is a much more sensible answer -- unless one is devoted to the current exploitative system.
The purpose of "golden rice" is not to solve malnutrition, that could be done far more cheaply and easily with carrots, etc. Its purpose is to provide good PR for the biotech industry: "Why, yes, our GM crops are largely untested for safety, and most of the studies on safety that do exist are ones we've done ourselves (trust us!); and yes, they present a novel ecological hazard of genome pollution; and yes, they have led to increased pesticides use; and yes, they give more control of agriculture to corporate interests -- but look! We found a very expensive and impractical way to prevent some cases of vitamin A deficiency! Love us! Worship us! Big Science!"
It's not science, it's scientism in the advancement of corporatism.
Why should a site like YouTube be needed? If everyone had to host their own video content, perhaps we'd have come to useful video standards long ago? Certainly having the majority of on-line content in one place is useful for the copyright cartel, but what does it do for the rest of us?
The other alternative would be to have ads, but not have them fill up every available space. If ads were rare and tasteful, say a single simpIe text link on each page, I wouldn't need Adblock Plus. Heck, if in addition to that they didn't track people, I might even click on one once in a while.
Instead they're so common and obnoxious that the web is useless without ad blockers. And in 20 years of using the web (holy shit -- yes, I wrote my first HTML in 1993), I can count on my fingers the number of ads I've clicked.
Don't European rights include the whole EU? EU population is over 500 million.
That's not really how ILL works. You have to request a specific title. (Try Worldcat to find one.) My local library was able to get me anything I asked for that was in a library collection in the U.S. -- I was doing some historical research and asked for some pretty oddball texts.
If you go in with a title and the librarians won't look it up to see if it's available for ILL, they're not doing their job: send a note to your county or city library director and your councilperson.
That said, yes, if I think I might look at a book twice, I'll often just purchase a used copy from Powell's. (Certainly not from the the evil twits at Amazon.)