You should know that "dark matter" is just matter that doesn't emit light. In other words, it's anything which isn't a star or a hot gas. You are dark matter. It doesn't seem so mysterious when you look at it like that, does it?
There's reason to believe that known types of matter can't account for all, or even most, of dark matter. All this means is that there's another type of matter which doesn't emit light, which we don't know about. Given that neutrinos were only discovered in 1970, and yet they're hugely abundant in the universe, this doesn't seem so implausible.
And Congress regulating them will simple establish them further, as competition will be much harder.
You say this as though regulatory lock-in is the only possible result of regulation. Use your imagination a little, instead of just assuming. If congress were to simply implement some limitations on the collection and storage of data it would devastate their business model (except for Twitter, who doesn't seem to have any mechanism for making money) while giving them no advantages over other startups that they don't already have. No lock-in.
If congress were to slap them on the wrist and say that they could do whatever they want as long as they buried some wavier down deep inside of a three hundred page click-through EULA, then all of their potential competitors would have to spend their inadequate resources on hiring lawyers to write long EULAs. That is lock-in. It's not inevitable, but it can happen.
Look I didn't make that up, trafficking just means buying or selling something illegally. Thus, "sex trafficking" means buying or selling sex illegally. The fact that people often use "sex trafficking" as shorthand for "human trafficking for the purpose of sex" means that interested parties can exploit that ambiguity in language.
I realize that "terrorist" is the new trendy label, but while hate crimes are often related to terrorism they are not the same thing. This despite the fact that hate crimes are often intended to generate terror.
Did you read the summary? He was masking his IP address, as you'd expect. Expect he made a mistake one time, as you'd expect. And they caught it with their ubiquitous surveillance, as you'd expect. That's how it usually works - you are the leetest haxxor ever... until you screw up that one time.
There's nothing weird or surprising about this evidence, it's a typical story about this sort of thing.
When Lucy, of 'I Love Lucy', got pregnant, she was not allowed to be seen on screen in that condition.... But why was that so? Because of the Religious Right.
Or... because only Lucille Ball was pregnant, not Lucy Riccardo.
Yes, probably. That bill is specifically about prostitution, but it mandates review and censorship of user-submitted content. So since these companies are implementing those processes anyway, they're likely trying to fend off further regulation by getting ahead of the censorship curve.
The fact that they're targeting guns isn't really surprising, that most recent Florida shooting is still a pretty hot topic.
The bill makes a permanent change, but also does some short-term stuff in order to skirt a voting restriction on long-term spending. What you're suggesting is that "you're so tired" about talking about the long-term ramifications of a permanent change, and that instead we should focus on the fact that in the short term it's still bad, but not as bad? And your solution is to go even further into debt in 8 years, in order to keep giving the top 1% only 25% percent of the cuts?
This is... lame. I guess you can be tired of anything, so I'm not going to argue with you about that, and to be honest I'm pretty sick of this bullshit too. I guess I can commiserate.
Sex trafficking is prostitution. The word "trafficking" just means trade in illegal goods - "drug trafficking" means buying or selling illegal drugs, "human trafficking" means buying or selling humans (i.e.: slavery), "sex trafficking" means buying or selling sex (in those places where that is illegal).
They call it sex trafficking here, rather than prostitution, because the public associates the word trafficking with human trafficking, because that's where it's most often used. In other words, they're taking advantage of public confusion to crack down on prostitution in a way that most of the public wouldn't normally support but a few members of the public will cheer for.
Those few members of the public who will cheer for this tend to be single-issue "family values" voters, which is why the EFF is describing this as a stepping stone to banning pornography from the internet. I really doubt that it will ever get that far, but targeting prostitutes like this is... effective. Reversing this will be difficult, people are generally unwilling to stick up for prostitutes to that degree.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but the bit about tuition is not correct according to what I've heard. Average tuition has not gone up dramatically, private schools have just started to advertise high tuitions in order to lure in more desirable students with "savings" in the form of "generous" grants and bursaries. Also, since a higher sticker price carries with it the sense the the student is getting greater value, i.e.: more prestigious schools are more expensive, none of the schools want to be the only one to drop their prices. Even while they acknowledge that the situation has gotten ridiculous.
The biggest problem with this, of course, is that even though average tuitions are relatively reasonable, there are some students who get suckered into paying full sticker price with the rhetoric that they're "investing in their future" or some such. Attitudes toward the value of education haven't changed to match the new situation.
So, in other words, it's basically just another example of increasing inequality - some students are paying a huge amount while others coast through paying almost nothing. You'd hope that maybe this would be proportional to those students' ability to pay the tuition (or their parents' ability)... I don't have any numbers on that, but it doesn't jive with what I've seen.
You know, lumping all politicians together like this really isn't any better than any other form of bigotry. It comes from the same place, and causes all the same problems. It's particularly harmful here, of course, because while racial or ethnic bigotry undermines our ability to live together in the same country, this undermines our ability to have a country at all. Even monarchies have politicians.
The keystone principle of representative government is that politicians are not all the same and that citizens can maintain their government by carefully choosing between those politicians. You may argue that this principle has proven to be unreliable, and I'd agree with you there with the present case in point, but that's a far cry from claiming that it's a total failure.
Isn't science already there? Science has already identified the problem and provided a solution: stop doing it. It's just not an easy answers, no-sacrifices, we-don't-have-to-do-anything-differently-because-we-are-perfect-just-the-way-we-are, solution.
What the title is hoping for is a, "Can't someone else do it?" solution, and it's invoking science like a magic wand in order to get there.
Several of the brands of bottled water that they tested are just tap water that is filtered and then bottled. So it might have some from the PVC pipes, but then some is being added by either the filtering or the bottling.
For a lot of things like comic strips, it's a bad deal if they publish the strips to the RSS feed. But it works out fine if they only publish a notice and a link, "New strip available, click here to read it."
From my perspective, this is really all that I want anyway. RSS is a great way to stay notified.
Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else.
Wikipedia is way more authoritative than me, or you. Since we are the ones reading it in this scenario, that's a pretty good starting point.
For your example: it's true that Wikipedia won't tell you how to interpret the facts that it gives, but presumably that's what the video that you're watching is doing. That's what conspiracy theories do. Since the point of these links is to combat false information in youtube videos, telling you whether that information is true seems sufficient.
Yes it's true that Wikipedia (like all sources of information) is subject to editorial bias, but since its only purpose here is to counter false information that isn't a significant problem. You watch a video, you click the link, you find out that the video was lying to you, you realize that you shouldn't pay attention to what the video said. The end.
Their location in Time Square is fantastic. Of course that's a showpiece location, they put extra effort into making it really nice, but it's terrific.
For the parent: Yes online shopping has hurt retailers like Toys R Us, but the summary mentions a leveraged buyout - this is likely the bigger reason. Those result in an appallingly high rate of bankruptcy for the victim company.
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
"If you can't do everything perfectly, never try to do anything." You have failed to sell this.
Not that you're wrong for criticizing the parent, he turned an effort to correct falsehoods into a question of contentiousness. That shouldn't have come up in the first place. The question is not, "Are the ideas in this video contentious?" the question is, "Do the ideas in this video agree with what's in Wikipedia?"
That would mean admitting that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the wrong person
That's not true at all, from everything I read on the page you linked the prize was not given to the wrong person. She did indeed work very hard for democracy and human rights, in a nonviolent way. As was stated twenty-five years ago when she was awarded the prize.
If the point of your comment was that an abused person is more likely to turn into an abuser when given the opportunity, well that's a well-known phenomenon.
It does put more power in the hands of the retailers, but that power is about accepting returns or not. This is a power, but it's not a particularly threatening one.
Well, you say that figuring out how this can be abused is an exercise for the reader. So, let's see here... Worst case scenario that I can think of: they start selling defective products and refusing to accept returns for them. That's not a new power though, they can do that right now. The reason why they (mostly) don't do this right now is not related to your Retail Equation score. I suppose the retailers could start selling defective products only to those people who already have a low score, thereby offloading bad merchandise on people who they don't want shopping in their stores anyway. That could work temporarily, assuming they don't get arrested, but it's a pretty high-risk method of getting rid of a few odds and ends.
The only real negative that I see here is the standard one about data collection: in order to make this system work, and to track your score, they need to collect information on who you are and what you're returning whenever you return something. If you buy a sex toy and it's defective, you can't return it without giving up your personal details. Leaving an indelible record of your purchase and the fact that it didn't feel as comfortable as it should have when you stuck it in your butt. That's a big problem, but it's a data collection problem, an incentive problem. It's not a problem of retailers having more power, it's a problem of what they're willing to do to get more power.
Slashdot Mirror
You should know that "dark matter" is just matter that doesn't emit light. In other words, it's anything which isn't a star or a hot gas. You are dark matter. It doesn't seem so mysterious when you look at it like that, does it?
There's reason to believe that known types of matter can't account for all, or even most, of dark matter. All this means is that there's another type of matter which doesn't emit light, which we don't know about. Given that neutrinos were only discovered in 1970, and yet they're hugely abundant in the universe, this doesn't seem so implausible.
I don't have a problem with this at all, I would love a Linux Subsystem for Windows. I know it's possible to set up, I just want it to be easy.
And Congress regulating them will simple establish them further, as competition will be much harder.
You say this as though regulatory lock-in is the only possible result of regulation. Use your imagination a little, instead of just assuming. If congress were to simply implement some limitations on the collection and storage of data it would devastate their business model (except for Twitter, who doesn't seem to have any mechanism for making money) while giving them no advantages over other startups that they don't already have. No lock-in.
If congress were to slap them on the wrist and say that they could do whatever they want as long as they buried some wavier down deep inside of a three hundred page click-through EULA, then all of their potential competitors would have to spend their inadequate resources on hiring lawyers to write long EULAs. That is lock-in. It's not inevitable, but it can happen.
Look I didn't make that up, trafficking just means buying or selling something illegally. Thus, "sex trafficking" means buying or selling sex illegally. The fact that people often use "sex trafficking" as shorthand for "human trafficking for the purpose of sex" means that interested parties can exploit that ambiguity in language.
You win. That one is much worse.
I realize that "terrorist" is the new trendy label, but while hate crimes are often related to terrorism they are not the same thing. This despite the fact that hate crimes are often intended to generate terror.
Did you read the summary? He was masking his IP address, as you'd expect. Expect he made a mistake one time, as you'd expect. And they caught it with their ubiquitous surveillance, as you'd expect. That's how it usually works - you are the leetest haxxor ever... until you screw up that one time.
There's nothing weird or surprising about this evidence, it's a typical story about this sort of thing.
When Lucy, of 'I Love Lucy', got pregnant, she was not allowed to be seen on screen in that condition. ... But why was that so? Because of the Religious Right.
Or... because only Lucille Ball was pregnant, not Lucy Riccardo.
Yes, probably. That bill is specifically about prostitution, but it mandates review and censorship of user-submitted content. So since these companies are implementing those processes anyway, they're likely trying to fend off further regulation by getting ahead of the censorship curve.
The fact that they're targeting guns isn't really surprising, that most recent Florida shooting is still a pretty hot topic.
The bill makes a permanent change, but also does some short-term stuff in order to skirt a voting restriction on long-term spending. What you're suggesting is that "you're so tired" about talking about the long-term ramifications of a permanent change, and that instead we should focus on the fact that in the short term it's still bad, but not as bad? And your solution is to go even further into debt in 8 years, in order to keep giving the top 1% only 25% percent of the cuts?
This is... lame. I guess you can be tired of anything, so I'm not going to argue with you about that, and to be honest I'm pretty sick of this bullshit too. I guess I can commiserate.
Sex trafficking is prostitution. The word "trafficking" just means trade in illegal goods - "drug trafficking" means buying or selling illegal drugs, "human trafficking" means buying or selling humans (i.e.: slavery), "sex trafficking" means buying or selling sex (in those places where that is illegal).
They call it sex trafficking here, rather than prostitution, because the public associates the word trafficking with human trafficking, because that's where it's most often used. In other words, they're taking advantage of public confusion to crack down on prostitution in a way that most of the public wouldn't normally support but a few members of the public will cheer for.
Those few members of the public who will cheer for this tend to be single-issue "family values" voters, which is why the EFF is describing this as a stepping stone to banning pornography from the internet. I really doubt that it will ever get that far, but targeting prostitutes like this is... effective. Reversing this will be difficult, people are generally unwilling to stick up for prostitutes to that degree.
So how do they make money? I'm not seeing how this dude is going to make back his $50 million investment.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but the bit about tuition is not correct according to what I've heard. Average tuition has not gone up dramatically, private schools have just started to advertise high tuitions in order to lure in more desirable students with "savings" in the form of "generous" grants and bursaries. Also, since a higher sticker price carries with it the sense the the student is getting greater value, i.e.: more prestigious schools are more expensive, none of the schools want to be the only one to drop their prices. Even while they acknowledge that the situation has gotten ridiculous.
The biggest problem with this, of course, is that even though average tuitions are relatively reasonable, there are some students who get suckered into paying full sticker price with the rhetoric that they're "investing in their future" or some such. Attitudes toward the value of education haven't changed to match the new situation.
So, in other words, it's basically just another example of increasing inequality - some students are paying a huge amount while others coast through paying almost nothing. You'd hope that maybe this would be proportional to those students' ability to pay the tuition (or their parents' ability)... I don't have any numbers on that, but it doesn't jive with what I've seen.
My first thought was that this was someone trying to demonstrate the absurdity of turning information into contraband.
Bigotry does not require the subject of your prejudice to be born with anything. Here.
You know, lumping all politicians together like this really isn't any better than any other form of bigotry. It comes from the same place, and causes all the same problems. It's particularly harmful here, of course, because while racial or ethnic bigotry undermines our ability to live together in the same country, this undermines our ability to have a country at all. Even monarchies have politicians.
The keystone principle of representative government is that politicians are not all the same and that citizens can maintain their government by carefully choosing between those politicians. You may argue that this principle has proven to be unreliable, and I'd agree with you there with the present case in point, but that's a far cry from claiming that it's a total failure.
Isn't science already there? Science has already identified the problem and provided a solution: stop doing it. It's just not an easy answers, no-sacrifices, we-don't-have-to-do-anything-differently-because-we-are-perfect-just-the-way-we-are, solution.
What the title is hoping for is a, "Can't someone else do it?" solution, and it's invoking science like a magic wand in order to get there.
Several of the brands of bottled water that they tested are just tap water that is filtered and then bottled. So it might have some from the PVC pipes, but then some is being added by either the filtering or the bottling.
For a lot of things like comic strips, it's a bad deal if they publish the strips to the RSS feed. But it works out fine if they only publish a notice and a link, "New strip available, click here to read it."
From my perspective, this is really all that I want anyway. RSS is a great way to stay notified.
That's a damn shame. I'm sorry to hear that.
Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else.
Wikipedia is way more authoritative than me, or you. Since we are the ones reading it in this scenario, that's a pretty good starting point.
For your example: it's true that Wikipedia won't tell you how to interpret the facts that it gives, but presumably that's what the video that you're watching is doing. That's what conspiracy theories do. Since the point of these links is to combat false information in youtube videos, telling you whether that information is true seems sufficient.
Yes it's true that Wikipedia (like all sources of information) is subject to editorial bias, but since its only purpose here is to counter false information that isn't a significant problem. You watch a video, you click the link, you find out that the video was lying to you, you realize that you shouldn't pay attention to what the video said. The end.
Their location in Time Square is fantastic. Of course that's a showpiece location, they put extra effort into making it really nice, but it's terrific.
For the parent: Yes online shopping has hurt retailers like Toys R Us, but the summary mentions a leveraged buyout - this is likely the bigger reason. Those result in an appallingly high rate of bankruptcy for the victim company.
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
"If you can't do everything perfectly, never try to do anything." You have failed to sell this.
Not that you're wrong for criticizing the parent, he turned an effort to correct falsehoods into a question of contentiousness. That shouldn't have come up in the first place. The question is not, "Are the ideas in this video contentious?" the question is, "Do the ideas in this video agree with what's in Wikipedia?"
That would mean admitting that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the wrong person
That's not true at all, from everything I read on the page you linked the prize was not given to the wrong person. She did indeed work very hard for democracy and human rights, in a nonviolent way. As was stated twenty-five years ago when she was awarded the prize.
If the point of your comment was that an abused person is more likely to turn into an abuser when given the opportunity, well that's a well-known phenomenon.
It does put more power in the hands of the retailers, but that power is about accepting returns or not. This is a power, but it's not a particularly threatening one.
Well, you say that figuring out how this can be abused is an exercise for the reader. So, let's see here... Worst case scenario that I can think of: they start selling defective products and refusing to accept returns for them. That's not a new power though, they can do that right now. The reason why they (mostly) don't do this right now is not related to your Retail Equation score. I suppose the retailers could start selling defective products only to those people who already have a low score, thereby offloading bad merchandise on people who they don't want shopping in their stores anyway. That could work temporarily, assuming they don't get arrested, but it's a pretty high-risk method of getting rid of a few odds and ends.
The only real negative that I see here is the standard one about data collection: in order to make this system work, and to track your score, they need to collect information on who you are and what you're returning whenever you return something. If you buy a sex toy and it's defective, you can't return it without giving up your personal details. Leaving an indelible record of your purchase and the fact that it didn't feel as comfortable as it should have when you stuck it in your butt. That's a big problem, but it's a data collection problem, an incentive problem. It's not a problem of retailers having more power, it's a problem of what they're willing to do to get more power.