Wrong....There are a number of generic traits which show an extremely high correlation with psychopathy. That doesn't mean they ARE a psychopath, however
You say I'm wrong, then go on to agree with me. You seem to be confused. I suggest you re-read my post and contemplate the difference between "one-to-one correspondence" and "extremely high correlation".
I think socialism is about the only likely outcome of all of this
What in the world does an economic system based where workers and the people, rather than a state-backed owning class, control the means of production, have to do with anything under discussion here? Or do you just have no idea what "socialism" means?
So perhaps some genetic traits can be secret but others should be divulged under certain circumstances. No psychopaths in political office, as police or teachers.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the danger here.
There is no genetic trait that corresponds one-to-one with psychopathy. There may (or may not) be certain genetic traits associated with a increased risk of psychopathy. As this distinction is pretty much lost on the general public, it is important that we do on brand people who have a greater change of developing psychopathy as actually being psychopaths. This is why genetic privacy is crucially important.
I wouldn't want you driving me if you kept on fishing a phone out of your pocket to tell you the time.
I wouldn't want you driving me if you kept looking at your wrist, rather than the road, to tell you the time.
This is a very stupid argument.
A few observations:
1) We don't need constant updates on the time.
2) Clocks are everywhere, including cars. That wasn't always the case, some of us are old enough to remember when a clock in a car was a luxury item. But now they're built in to pretty much everything electronic, so watches are less necessary than they were a few decades ago.
3) Some people have an social/emotional attachment to wristwatches, apparently using them as some sort of status broadcast. I don't understand that bit of primate behavior, but the use of wristwatch as ornamentation by some subcultures should be noted and may account for some of the bizarre vehemence in discussions of this topic.
4) A clip watch is the best solution, anyone not using one is wrong -- I have spoken.:-)
How does a phone in your pocket tell you the time?
There's a reason wristwatches supplanted pocket ones.
On the other hand, a watch in your pocket or clipped to a belt loop doesn't irritate your wrist. Once I started typing on computers regularly, in my teens, I started to find wristwatches really annoying. (Yes, I'm old enough that computers were not found in people's homes when I was a kid. Get off my lawn.)
I use a clip watch on a belt loop. It's about as convenient to access a clip watch as a wristwatch. Also a handy place to keep a mini LED flashlight, or anything else small. When I want to bring the fancy,I have a nice pocket watch, which does take an additional moment to access, but won't get banged into things.
Visible firearms do cause a disturbance, and it makes perfect sense that they can make an officer feel uncomfortable, because they are an existential threat to the officer.
Cop's firearms do cause a disturbance, and it makes perfect sense that they can make an citizen feel uncomfortable, because they are an existential threat to the citizen.
I'm more worried about guns in the hands of cops -- members of an organization with a demonstrated tendency towards illegitimate violence -- than guns in the hands of a random citizen.
the good ones won't step up to do anything about the few "bad" ones that there are.
They are not good cops, then. Any cop who know about a crime and fails to report it because that crime was committed by one of his fellow officers, isn't doing his job, and is therefore by definition a bad cop.
It's time for starting to call for reversal of the process back to the origins of the US In every persistent ideology, that is the one that had existed for even only slightly longer than 236 years, there always have been restoration/revival movement and if this country wants to claim to have any ideology beside the animalistic ideology "compete and survive", it must prove itself by having this type of movement as well.
A restoration to a nation where slave-owning is standard practice, where only white male property owners have full citizenship rights? No thanks.
Anyone who thinks the early United States was some sort of libertarian paradise needs to read up on their history.
There is an important issue of civil liberties here regarding widespread state surveillance. But appeal to some mythological past is not only irrelevant but distracting.
Slashdot on government surveillance:...Slashdot on Google surveillance
Are you suggesting a POV on the part of Slashdot's editors? Or on the part of/. members/commenters? Because I see plenty of "Piss off, Google, respect my privacy" sentiment here.
'statistically, people who use php write horrible code from a security perspective, most of the time'.
True. However, it's also true that statistically, people who use C++ write horrible code from a security perspective, most of the time. And people who use Perl write horrible code from a security perspective, most of the time. And people who use Java, Python, COBOL, etc., write horrible code from a security perspective -- indeed, horrible code in general -- most of the time.
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a language in which it is difficult to write bad programs.
If they charged tax for everyone to pay for TV shows, then taxes would go up quite a bit for everyone, even people who don't watch much TV.
You're already paying that tax. When you buy a Coke or a Ford or a Dell, part of the price you pay goes to buy advertising to convince you to by more Coke or Fords or Dells. Even those who don't watch TV, but by Cokes or Fords or Dells, pay this tax. It would be more efficient, and subject us all to far less attempts at mind control, to fund TV with an honest tax than the stealth one provided by advertising.
By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I'll point out that since you work for an industry that is Pure Concentrated Evil, no one here gives a damn what you have to say.
But at no point does the camera experience the image it is capturing.
Who says that a sophisticated enough camera, wouldn't?
That's the difficult issue with sentience. What is this ability to experience, as opposed to just mechanistically reacting by processing inputs and outputs?
Please demonstrate that you have this ability to experience and are not "just mechanistically reacting by processing inputs and outputs".
Only in the US has the word "libertarian" been co-opted by the free-market uber alles, Ayn Rand worshiping, "I've got mine so fuck you!" crowd.
As one of Kim Stanley Robinson's characters put it, "That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The typical usage in the U.S. is different because right-wong people opposed to the regulation of big business tried to steal the term in the 1950s. They've managed to bamboozle a lot of folks over the years, but more and more Americans are coming to realize that "libertarian capitalism" reduces in the end to nothing but plutocracy: a state powerful enough to create and enforce so-called "property rights" on the behalf of capitalists, but not to put any leash on those capitalist's exploitation of people or the planet.
PHP is -- like most languages in which people actually get shit done -- ugly in spots. But I'm constantly amazed at the flat-out inaccuracy of many haters.
It's opinion, and not expert opinion. From TFA: "Keith Cowing, editor of the website NASA Watch, noted that the undersigners, most of whom have engineering backgrounds, worked almost exclusively at the Houston-based Johnson Space Centre, a facility almost entirely removed from NASAâ(TM)s climate change arm. âoeThey do mission operations and human spaceflight design, period,â said Mr. Cowing."
The fact that a person once worked at NASA doesn't make them a scientist. NASA hires plenty of janitors, administrators, clerical workers, pilots, IT people, and others with little or not scientific background.
blu ray players, apple tv/roku and game consoles are much better suited for this because for most people their life does not revolve around the computer
BluRay players, settop boxes, and game consoles are computers. Don't lose sight of that. They are computers that you don't have much control over, though. The acceptability of that trade-off is up to you.
I have a BluRay player with Netflix built in that I watch some stuff on, but I also watch a lot of stuff on my old laptop hooked to my TV via a cheap VGA converter box. It's doesn't give me an HD picture but I personally don't give a damn, YMMV.
An employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason, even if he doesn't like the way they sneeze. It may not be ethical or moral, but it surely shouldn't be illegal.
Why not?
First, you use the word "he", suggesting an individual human. But many employers are corporations or partnerships, legal entities created by the state. What such entities are allowed to do should be regulated very closely.
But even a sole proprietor seeks to have the state enforce "property rights", "contractual obligations", and other such fictions. In return for that, the state ought to require the employer to act in concert with the public interest.
There's progress, and there's fecking ignorance of the scale of the problem.
And then there's fecking ignorance of the scale of work being done.
I went to a lecture about autonomous cars in grad school -- twenty years ago. This is not a field that Google suddenly invented and started working on, they are building on decades of robotics research. It's not just Google's measly 200,000 miles.
It doesn't matter how open-minded you are, or how pure the LSD, you still can't fly.
And it doesn't matter how many people believe a stupid urban legend about LSD, it's still not true that taking LSD makes you think you can fly.
Which is not to say that people can't use psychedelic drugs irresponsibly. But they can also go rock climbing, hiking, parachuting, or white-water rafting irresponsibly, or eat irresponsibly ("these wild mushrooms are edible, right?").
The peer review was not a double-blind study. Ergo: No scientific evidence, any finite conclusion is worthless.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "finite" conclusion, but if you think that only double-blind studies count as scientific evidence, then I suppose you don't think astronomy or particle physics or paleontology are scientific fields?
A double-blind study, when possible, is a great way -- perhaps the best way -- to investigate certain questions. That does not make it the only form of scientific evidence.
I find it most offensive that you somehow find it "moral" to claim a right on my organs.
Once "you" no longer exist -- i.e., your forebrain, seat of thought and personality and emotion and all functions higher than a twitch is no longer functioning -- it is inappropriate to refer to anything as "yours".
Now, there may be a legitimate issue here about when "you" cease to exist in some edge cases. That's certainly worth discussing, and I'd like everyone to be very, very sure that I'm gone before they start dividing up the ol' corpus.
But given that you are no longer around, the chunk of meat that used to do the verb-that-was-you is a potentially life-saving resource. Sentimental attachments and slippery-slope arguments aside, it is only rational to put the resource to good use.
I'm not entirely sure but you may have just demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger Effect nicely.:)
Ahem.
GP said, "In California, roads are designed to handle people driving normally in all lanes..."
You then cited a law regarding "any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic," and suggested that this invalidated the GP's point.
May I suggest you rethink who is demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
You say I'm wrong, then go on to agree with me. You seem to be confused. I suggest you re-read my post and contemplate the difference between "one-to-one correspondence" and "extremely high correlation".
It would also be nice if you provided a link to appropriate research. My quick googling finds just one study of one genetic trait that corresponds to psychopathic tendencies only in those who grow up poor . If you've got other research, please link to it. Thanks.
What in the world does an economic system based where workers and the people, rather than a state-backed owning class, control the means of production, have to do with anything under discussion here? Or do you just have no idea what "socialism" means?
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the danger here.
There is no genetic trait that corresponds one-to-one with psychopathy. There may (or may not) be certain genetic traits associated with a increased risk of psychopathy. As this distinction is pretty much lost on the general public, it is important that we do on brand people who have a greater change of developing psychopathy as actually being psychopaths. This is why genetic privacy is crucially important.
And changing the law is exactly what's under consideration here. May I direct your attention to the fine headline. Thank you.
I wouldn't want you driving me if you kept looking at your wrist, rather than the road, to tell you the time.
This is a very stupid argument.
A few observations:
1) We don't need constant updates on the time.
2) Clocks are everywhere, including cars. That wasn't always the case, some of us are old enough to remember when a clock in a car was a luxury item. But now they're built in to pretty much everything electronic, so watches are less necessary than they were a few decades ago.
3) Some people have an social/emotional attachment to wristwatches, apparently using them as some sort of status broadcast. I don't understand that bit of primate behavior, but the use of wristwatch as ornamentation by some subcultures should be noted and may account for some of the bizarre vehemence in discussions of this topic.
4) A clip watch is the best solution, anyone not using one is wrong -- I have spoken. :-)
On the other hand, a watch in your pocket or clipped to a belt loop doesn't irritate your wrist. Once I started typing on computers regularly, in my teens, I started to find wristwatches really annoying. (Yes, I'm old enough that computers were not found in people's homes when I was a kid. Get off my lawn.)
I use a clip watch on a belt loop. It's about as convenient to access a clip watch as a wristwatch. Also a handy place to keep a mini LED flashlight, or anything else small. When I want to bring the fancy,I have a nice pocket watch, which does take an additional moment to access, but won't get banged into things.
Cop's firearms do cause a disturbance, and it makes perfect sense that they can make an citizen feel uncomfortable, because they are an existential threat to the citizen.
I'm more worried about guns in the hands of cops -- members of an organization with a demonstrated tendency towards illegitimate violence -- than guns in the hands of a random citizen.
They are not good cops, then. Any cop who know about a crime and fails to report it because that crime was committed by one of his fellow officers, isn't doing his job, and is therefore by definition a bad cop.
A restoration to a nation where slave-owning is standard practice, where only white male property owners have full citizenship rights? No thanks.
Anyone who thinks the early United States was some sort of libertarian paradise needs to read up on their history.
There is an important issue of civil liberties here regarding widespread state surveillance. But appeal to some mythological past is not only irrelevant but distracting.
Are you suggesting a POV on the part of Slashdot's editors? Or on the part of /. members/commenters? Because I see plenty of "Piss off, Google, respect my privacy" sentiment here.
True. However, it's also true that statistically, people who use C++ write horrible code from a security perspective, most of the time. And people who use Perl write horrible code from a security perspective, most of the time. And people who use Java, Python, COBOL, etc., write horrible code from a security perspective -- indeed, horrible code in general -- most of the time.
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a language in which it is difficult to write bad programs.
You're already paying that tax. When you buy a Coke or a Ford or a Dell, part of the price you pay goes to buy advertising to convince you to by more Coke or Fords or Dells. Even those who don't watch TV, but by Cokes or Fords or Dells, pay this tax. It would be more efficient, and subject us all to far less attempts at mind control, to fund TV with an honest tax than the stealth one provided by advertising.
Bill Hicks would say,
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I'll point out that since you work for an industry that is Pure Concentrated Evil, no one here gives a damn what you have to say.
Who says that a sophisticated enough camera, wouldn't?
Please demonstrate that you have this ability to experience and are not "just mechanistically reacting by processing inputs and outputs".
As one of Kim Stanley Robinson's characters put it, "That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The typical usage in the U.S. is different because right-wong people opposed to the regulation of big business tried to steal the term in the 1950s. They've managed to bamboozle a lot of folks over the years, but more and more Americans are coming to realize that "libertarian capitalism" reduces in the end to nothing but plutocracy: a state powerful enough to create and enforce so-called "property rights" on the behalf of capitalists, but not to put any leash on those capitalist's exploitation of people or the planet.
Ahem.
PHP is -- like most languages in which people actually get shit done -- ugly in spots. But I'm constantly amazed at the flat-out inaccuracy of many haters.
It's opinion, and not expert opinion. From TFA: "Keith Cowing, editor of the website NASA Watch, noted that the undersigners, most of whom have engineering backgrounds, worked almost exclusively at the Houston-based Johnson Space Centre, a facility almost entirely removed from NASAâ(TM)s climate change arm. âoeThey do mission operations and human spaceflight design, period,â said Mr. Cowing."
The fact that a person once worked at NASA doesn't make them a scientist. NASA hires plenty of janitors, administrators, clerical workers, pilots, IT people, and others with little or not scientific background.
BluRay players, settop boxes, and game consoles are computers. Don't lose sight of that. They are computers that you don't have much control over, though. The acceptability of that trade-off is up to you.
I have a BluRay player with Netflix built in that I watch some stuff on, but I also watch a lot of stuff on my old laptop hooked to my TV via a cheap VGA converter box. It's doesn't give me an HD picture but I personally don't give a damn, YMMV.
Why not?
First, you use the word "he", suggesting an individual human. But many employers are corporations or partnerships, legal entities created by the state. What such entities are allowed to do should be regulated very closely.
But even a sole proprietor seeks to have the state enforce "property rights", "contractual obligations", and other such fictions. In return for that, the state ought to require the employer to act in concert with the public interest.
And then there's fecking ignorance of the scale of work being done.
I went to a lecture about autonomous cars in grad school -- twenty years ago. This is not a field that Google suddenly invented and started working on, they are building on decades of robotics research. It's not just Google's measly 200,000 miles.
Never confuse a society where X is outlawed, with an X-free society.
And it doesn't matter how many people believe a stupid urban legend about LSD, it's still not true that taking LSD makes you think you can fly.
Which is not to say that people can't use psychedelic drugs irresponsibly. But they can also go rock climbing, hiking, parachuting, or white-water rafting irresponsibly, or eat irresponsibly ("these wild mushrooms are edible, right?").
I'm not sure what you mean by a "finite" conclusion, but if you think that only double-blind studies count as scientific evidence, then I suppose you don't think astronomy or particle physics or paleontology are scientific fields?
A double-blind study, when possible, is a great way -- perhaps the best way -- to investigate certain questions. That does not make it the only form of scientific evidence.
Once "you" no longer exist -- i.e., your forebrain, seat of thought and personality and emotion and all functions higher than a twitch is no longer functioning -- it is inappropriate to refer to anything as "yours".
Now, there may be a legitimate issue here about when "you" cease to exist in some edge cases. That's certainly worth discussing, and I'd like everyone to be very, very sure that I'm gone before they start dividing up the ol' corpus.
But given that you are no longer around, the chunk of meat that used to do the verb-that-was-you is a potentially life-saving resource. Sentimental attachments and slippery-slope arguments aside, it is only rational to put the resource to good use.
Ahem.
GP said, "In California, roads are designed to handle people driving normally in all lanes..."
You then cited a law regarding "any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic," and suggested that this invalidated the GP's point.
May I suggest you rethink who is demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect? ;-)