If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
Your metaphor is off. It isn't about the court compelling you to produce the document, it's about compelling the foreign confederate to produce the document.
In this case I think the US courts should have some mechanism for petitioning the Irish courts to allow them to perform the search. Justice is still served, but each country still maintains its sovereignty.
Sweden is trying hard to make a name for itself as a place high tech start ups should work. Sweden is a place that will allow them to be creative without fear of undo influence from multinationals or foreign influence. cough cough movie studios cough cough riaa cough cough Assange...
I get the arguments that they don't host anything and they're just a medium for people to exchange files. But their name is literally The Pirate Bay, their business model is about as close to explicit piracy as you can get.
I'm frankly shocked they've remained open this long.
When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.
This has been the main argument in favor of torture. "Do you think the terrorists treat their prisoners nicely? Then why should we be bound to any conventions we know they won't abide?" The argument has always been that "they" started it.
The morality of any of these situations has to be asymmetrical, and "our side" always needs to be the kinder, more honest, and more fair side. As soon as you demonstrate your willingness to use the unethical or evil techniques of your enemy, you lose any distinction from them.
More than asymmetrical, it has to be utterly unambiguous.
People will always give their side the benefit of the doubt and the good guy isn't always clear. Bin Laden killed 3k in an utterly indefensible act, the Iraq war killed 100k in a much more defensible act. In the west it's easy to consider Bil Laden's act as the greater evil. Afterall he explicitly tried to kill as many people as possible with the goal of starting a wider war. The Iraq war, even if it were a mistake, wasn't started with the objective of mass casualties.
However, if you're from the middle east, and find it easier to identify with the dead Iraqis than the dead Americans, then you might consider the far greater number of Iraqi casualties to make that the worse crime.
Or in Ukraine, where Russia is are using the NATO intervensions in Bosnia and Libya, and the US invasion of Iraq, as justifications for their own actions. It doesn't matter if they're right, it's incredibly easy to rationalize the acts of your side. Just to be certain that you're not one of the bad guys yourself you need to keep your actions way above reproach.
Someone tell this guy, the entire Linux community has spoken... we do not want this.
On install, ask if this is a mobile device... if it is, install your screwy new UI. But no-one will click that option because there's already a fantastic Linux distro for mobile called Android. If they don't chose mobile (and no-one will) then install a "normal" desktop.
And since you seem to be unaware of history, what you're doing is exactly what Microsoft attempted with Win8 and failed miserably at. No one wants this but you so please give up.
Performance pay--- how do you measure performance? It is NOT a simple problem and no matter what you come up with humans are naturally talented at adaptation, they will survive and many will thrive by gaming your system. Seniority is the least hackable metric of all and so simple everybody knows it's inherent flaws - but EVERY metric is going to be flawed.
Online performance is largely measured by CLICKS. The result is the trashy click bait we have today. An earth shattering investigative report which might take a year of a senior journalist's time (a REAL journalist) puts them at the bottom of the scale while some twit pushing rumors/gossip who can't spell has tons of clicked of trash gets to the top (and has the nerve to call what they do journalism.)
Even using clicks as a metric making clickbait can be a mistake.
Clickbait attracts casual one-time viewers, they have no loyalty and are just clicking on whomever has the latest viral article. If someone starts doing viral better than you then your traffic drops off a cliff.
But if you don't do clickbait and have writers that develop a unique voice then you now have a monopoly because you're the only one of the planet publishing that voice. It might not make you rich, but as long as you have that writer the traffic is reliable.
Supporting Excellent Iraq War II, pumping the _Bell Curve_, publishing the racist fantasies of Stephen Glass, joining the anti-public education movement, and also publishing the "No Exit" hatchet job on Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal isn't in any way shape or form liberal. And that's not even taking into account Martin Perez' racism and ethnic hatred which is of a variety that is a bit harder to criticize in US society but which most liberals reject.
Representative quote from Andrew Sullivan: "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [note that he later altered that essay as published on his blog to make it less self-damning; this is the original wording]. Yes, he's gay. No, he's not liberal.
sPh
Sullivan (a Brit) self-identifies as a conservative, which he translates into Democrat in the US.
And he's long admitted his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, I'm curious about your accusation that he altered the essay, he's generally very forthright about when he's wrong and if there's a discrepancy between the TNR article and what he reposted I suspect it's not for the reason you suggest.
Either way, if you ignore the partisanship I don't think supporting the Iraq war was necessarily a conservative or liberal position. If one succeeded in deposing Iraq and replacing him with a relatively healthy democracy with minimal casualties you can make a pretty strong argument for the war from either end of the spectrum. Hitchens identified as a Marxist and I don't believe he ever repented of his support (other than the fact Bush was too incompetent to pull it off).
I saw this article recently on ThePunion.com, I'm sure of it.
Agreed, this reminds of one of those times when a paper in China or Russia rips a story from the Onion.
It still might be legit, according to the article:
But the order from the State Administration for Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television says: “Radio and television authorities at all levels must tighten up their regulations and crack down on the irregular and inaccurate use of the Chinese language, especially the misuse of idioms.”
Which is plausible as random bureaucrats sometimes issue brain dead rules which are quickly forgotten once the laughter dies down.
I knew one promising kid. Was building apache forks by the time he was two, built his own mircokernel when he was three. But then around three and a half some troublemaker in daycare slipped him a copy of Visual Studio and a VB.net book during naptime. By the time he hit four he's writing VB.net webapps for mars bars, six months later it's Windows Phone apps for smarties.
Poor kid never even made it to five, he got wet-willied trying to swipe a chocolate milk carton at lunch.
As long has he generates hits and comments he will be featured. You'd be better just ignoring his articles.
Not if people are just coming to complain, trolling your users isn't a sustainable model (well it is, but only if you make a 3rd party the direction of their rage).
That being said Bennett's proposal is fine, it's just not what people come to/. for. The same thing happened when they employed Jon Katz as a writer and his essays were regularly met with ire./. calls itself a blog but it's really a news aggregator with some limited commentary. There's a big difference, people read blogs because they enjoy the author's voice and reputation, this is particularly true in the case of longer essay style posts, it's not even the quality of the writing as much as a matter of persona taste. There's no reason to think that Bennett fans and/. readers are groups with significant overlap which is why he lacks fans.
But more importantly there's a status issue, everyone who writes a comment is fighting to get their voice heard and is playing by the same rulebook. No matter how inciteful or amazing your comment the best you're going to get is a +5 hidden in the comments section*. People are going resent the fact that Bennett seemingly feels his musings are so insightful they deserve their own story, the editors deciding to agree with him doesn't help.
* There was a short lived/. experiment where they'd choose a handful of comments from a story then post a new story based around those highlighted comments, presumably as a way to honour top comments^H^H^Hrestart the discussion that had gotten so many page views. One of my comments chosen for one of these stories (I think it might have been the first one they did), which would be cool if the experiment lasted more than a couple weeks.
Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a good chance, it takes many right circumstances to happen.
What's more, to be relevant to us it must also coincide with our time frame. We've only been capable over interacting with extra-terrestrials for about 150 years of 2+B years of the Earth's existence. Another civilization would have to be both advanced (more than we are) and at the right time for us to meet.
Well we know other civs either go silent or don't exist because we don't hear them. But a silent civ isn't necessarily an irrelevant one. If relativity holds they probably haven't even heard of us yet, they might have probes that noticed stone age humans roaming around but they didn't know if we'd developed. And even if they have noticed us they may not be ready to contact us yet. Maybe they want to give us a million years or so to play around on our own first.
The issue with online news isn't that the interesting bits are hard to find. It's that everyone has different interesting bits, there's a ton of duplicated content, and it's hard to follow issues and tell when something new has happened. Plus crowdsourcing is going to be tough when you're following a moving target of quickly developing events.
I think a much cooler idea would be to arrange the facts in a timeline as stories develop across weeks and months. Basically a fancier version of timelines on Wikipedia with better visualizations. When you notice a story you could hop over and get a simple overview of the coverage, and if you're following a story over a period of time you could routinely hop over and see the main events that occurred.
Colonialism is a red herring. Everything is more interesting if you actually learn about Asian history rather than trying to mold it to prove a point.
As countries go China's political history was remarkably stable. How many modern nations actually existed in a recognizable form in 1644, much less 1000AD.
Anyway, my point wasn't that colonialism explains everything, but as a factor it does seem to explain a lot of the issues in a way that makes sense.
A country without stable political institutions is destabilized by power struggles at the local and national level. In a country where everybody understands who's in charge and they all agree they're part of the same country people can worry less about conflict and more about living. If African nations had strong central governments with loyal militaries there wouldn't be warlords driving around extorting villages. If they had a strong tradition of public servents then police wouldn't be corrupt. A stable society creates the opportunity to invest in the future, the whole point of colonialism was to disrupt the old order to impose a European one, it's not a surprise that native populations under colonialism don't fare well.
There will be exceptions to this as there are exceptions to any influencial force, but it seems to explain a lot.
Unless this hypothetical AI is singularly focused on some inscrutable but unobtrusive goal, or so vastly intelligent that various inconvenient physical laws are cleverly bent, I'm not sure why 'ignored' would even be on the table.
I'm not saying that an AI would have to immediately either glom on to us and try to understand what it means to love, or build an army of hunter/killer murderbots; computers require space, supplies of construction materials, and energy; and so do we. Again, barring some post-scarcity breakthrough that our teeny hominid minds can barely imagine, where the AI goes merrily off and builds a dyson hypersphere of sentient computronium powered by the emissions of the galactic core, there isn't too much room for expansion before either the AI faces brownouts and a lack of hardware upgrades or we start getting squeezed to make room.
You don't have to feel strongly about somebody to exterminate them, if you both need the same resources.
More than that.
Hawking is clearly concerned about the strong AI, as would most people, and as such most people will look for ways to contain or otherwise defend themselves against the possibility of the AI going hostile.
The AI would be a moron if it didn't take similar precautions, it has no reason to leave its existence at the whims of humans.
> Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
I'm sorry, but what? The Korean peninsula was the site of a major American/Soviet proxy war in the 50s, and the US still has troops stationed there to this day.
True but the Koreans never really lost self rule. Remember I'm talking about colonization and the resulting breakdown of the society and political tradition, not war.
China was practically owned by the British Empire after the Second Opium War, and it was only Japanese expansionism (which was brutal itself) that saved them from being swallowed by the West.
The resulting treaties had very favourable terms for the British (and the British got Hong Kong, which is an interesting counterexample to my general argument) but otherwise Chinese self-rule remained intact.
Japan was firebombed and nuked by the US, and it constitutionally has no military now - the US military is its military, for all intents and purposes.
And again Japan never really lost self-rule or got colonized.
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were also subject to a proxy wars, but the other side won. Mongolia was alternately part of the Soviet Union and China at various times.
And very little colonialism (though more than other parts of East Asia).
Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty much just the remnants of British imperialism. Indonesia is a product of Dutch colonialism. The Phillipines were a Spanish colony and then an American colony (formally!). Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, and Brunei were all British colonies.
Except for Singapore and Hong Kong the places you're describing are the least developed places in Asia (except those fully colonized like Australia and New Zealand).
What is now India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan were all under British rule at certain times. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan were all under Soviet rule. Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have all been under Turkish or Soviet rule at various points.
tl;dr: I just listed off practically every country in Asia (besides the Middle East). They have all been colonized.
And India isn't doing as well as China, and as for countries that were part of the USSR there's a general rule where the more independence they retained the more developed they are now.
Why is it that Africa is so continually backward, despite massive amounts of help, while everyone else is so much further ahead, even when they have nowhere near the natural resources or other benefits that Africa offers? It can't be blamed on "colonization" or "guns, germs and steel". If that were the case, then North America, Australia, South America and Asia would be as bad off as Africa is today. Yet obviously that isn't the case; they're all significantly better off.
Australia and North and South America were colonized, the successful subsets of their populations are European immigrants and the natives are doing horribly.
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
Africa is really the only place that experienced significant colonial rule without colonization, the destruction of their old political institutions and national boundaries without any new power structures put in place, it's not surprising that they're lagging behind.
I'm not going to pretend to have all of the answers, but when I look at the facts, something sure is off when it comes to Africa, especially when it's compared to the rest of the world.
I don't have the answers either, but a genetic IQ difference doesn't really fit the evidence.
Africa was doing better than Asia in the 50s prior to decolonization, so did their genes change in the last 60 years?
What about Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mongolia? Are their genes so different that they missed out on the Chinese/Japanese smarts?
I'm not saying a genetic IQ difference is impossible, but all the evidence of a genetic difference is better explained by other factors.
Why is this a federal charge? While I firmly believe all cops should wear cameras, I also firmly believe individual departments should be paying for them.
So the departments in poor neighbourhoods with lots of controvertial police interactions also have the cheap crappy cameras that fail all the time?
Overall this looks like your standard US citizen reading a story about a different country that has a completely different culture and ways of doing things, projecting their own culture upon it, and running away with insanity that results from this heap of misunderstandings.
And then you had to go and ruin it with your accurate translation.
This. Like having the Black Panthers at telling stations to intimidate voters into voting for their preferred candidate. Wait, that wasn't Republicans!
The funny thing is that your summary isn't even accurate. There's no reason to think the Democrats had anything to do with this, there's not even a reason to think the Black Panthers as an organization had anything to do with it.
The entire incident was three members of the New Black Panthers outside of one polling station!!
Of all Linux distributions, Debian was *the* first choice for running servers, but since they decided to force systemd down users throats they have lost a lot of credibility in the BOFH world. A sysadmins first concern is reliability of its systems and this was also Debian's for a very long time. Clearly the adoption of systemd is not going in this direction. It seems to me that Devuan people understood that and want to take the now deserted land of server oriented distros. Of course the meaning for Debian is they will now have a hard time to compete with the whole lot of very good desktop distributions if they don't want to lose most of their users.
Then why aren't you hearing anything from the Red Hat customer base? If anyone wants reliability it's the enterprise which is Red Hat's entire market. The fact that nothing is coming from that side tells me that this is about something else entirely where people are more concerned about the political process and symbolism than the technical merits.
Maybe there is a big demand for a very stripped down low feature server distro, but I suspect this isn't going do become a big player.
That turnout among black people went up in 2012 isn't that surprising. They were voting for a black president (who was the victim of many race based attacks) and voter ID were big news so people were motivated to come out in response.
And besides, it doesn't matter to my point whether it was effective electioneering, the fact that voter ID requirements are intended to boost Republican prospects by reducing minority voting makes them an egregious form of electioneering.
As far as I know that was never established, that was fan canon. In any case, while it sounds reasonable that the first batch of stormtroopers were mostly the left over clones, by the time the original trilogy starts those guys are getting on in age. By the time of the new trilogy, they'd definitely need new blood.
So why not just get a fresh batch of clones? The most canon thing to do might be to claim it's another batch of clones but updated with some genetic engineering to explain the different actor.
Slashdot Mirror
Let the hatefest begin!
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
Your metaphor is off. It isn't about the court compelling you to produce the document, it's about compelling the foreign confederate to produce the document.
In this case I think the US courts should have some mechanism for petitioning the Irish courts to allow them to perform the search. Justice is still served, but each country still maintains its sovereignty.
Sweden is trying hard to make a name for itself as a place high tech start ups should work. Sweden is a place that will allow them to be creative without fear of undo influence from multinationals or foreign influence. cough cough movie studios cough cough riaa cough cough Assange...
I get the arguments that they don't host anything and they're just a medium for people to exchange files. But their name is literally The Pirate Bay, their business model is about as close to explicit piracy as you can get.
I'm frankly shocked they've remained open this long.
When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.
This has been the main argument in favor of torture. "Do you think the terrorists treat their prisoners nicely? Then why should we be bound to any conventions we know they won't abide?" The argument has always been that "they" started it.
The morality of any of these situations has to be asymmetrical, and "our side" always needs to be the kinder, more honest, and more fair side. As soon as you demonstrate your willingness to use the unethical or evil techniques of your enemy, you lose any distinction from them.
More than asymmetrical, it has to be utterly unambiguous.
People will always give their side the benefit of the doubt and the good guy isn't always clear. Bin Laden killed 3k in an utterly indefensible act, the Iraq war killed 100k in a much more defensible act. In the west it's easy to consider Bil Laden's act as the greater evil. Afterall he explicitly tried to kill as many people as possible with the goal of starting a wider war. The Iraq war, even if it were a mistake, wasn't started with the objective of mass casualties.
However, if you're from the middle east, and find it easier to identify with the dead Iraqis than the dead Americans, then you might consider the far greater number of Iraqi casualties to make that the worse crime.
Or in Ukraine, where Russia is are using the NATO intervensions in Bosnia and Libya, and the US invasion of Iraq, as justifications for their own actions. It doesn't matter if they're right, it's incredibly easy to rationalize the acts of your side. Just to be certain that you're not one of the bad guys yourself you need to keep your actions way above reproach.
Someone tell this guy, the entire Linux community has spoken... we do not want this.
On install, ask if this is a mobile device... if it is, install your screwy new UI. But no-one will click that option because there's already a fantastic Linux distro for mobile called Android.
If they don't chose mobile (and no-one will) then install a "normal" desktop.
And since you seem to be unaware of history, what you're doing is exactly what Microsoft attempted with Win8 and failed miserably at. No one wants this but you so please give up.
Seriously, what don't you get... Unity was released in 2010. Here's a graph showing distro use:
http://royal.pingdom.com/wp-co...
See how your distro use tanked in 2010? And Mint Spiked? Your users have spoken... listen!
So it sounds like you want them to ask on install if it's a mobile or desktop device, and install a touchscreen or desktop UI accordingly.
What he is saying is they'll auto-detect if it's a mobile or desktop device, and have the UI work as a touchscreen or desktop UI accordingly.
I'm not sure I see why you approach is the right idea and their approach is a disaster?
Performance pay--- how do you measure performance? It is NOT a simple problem and no matter what you come up with humans are naturally talented at adaptation, they will survive and many will thrive by gaming your system. Seniority is the least hackable metric of all and so simple everybody knows it's inherent flaws - but EVERY metric is going to be flawed.
Online performance is largely measured by CLICKS. The result is the trashy click bait we have today. An earth shattering investigative report which might take a year of a senior journalist's time (a REAL journalist) puts them at the bottom of the scale while some twit pushing rumors/gossip who can't spell has tons of clicked of trash gets to the top (and has the nerve to call what they do journalism.)
Even using clicks as a metric making clickbait can be a mistake.
Clickbait attracts casual one-time viewers, they have no loyalty and are just clicking on whomever has the latest viral article. If someone starts doing viral better than you then your traffic drops off a cliff.
But if you don't do clickbait and have writers that develop a unique voice then you now have a monopoly because you're the only one of the planet publishing that voice. It might not make you rich, but as long as you have that writer the traffic is reliable.
Supporting Excellent Iraq War II, pumping the _Bell Curve_, publishing the racist fantasies of Stephen Glass, joining the anti-public education movement, and also publishing the "No Exit" hatchet job on Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal isn't in any way shape or form liberal. And that's not even taking into account Martin Perez' racism and ethnic hatred which is of a variety that is a bit harder to criticize in US society but which most liberals reject.
Representative quote from Andrew Sullivan: "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [note that he later altered that essay as published on his blog to make it less self-damning; this is the original wording]. Yes, he's gay. No, he's not liberal.
sPh
Sullivan (a Brit) self-identifies as a conservative, which he translates into Democrat in the US.
And he's long admitted his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, I'm curious about your accusation that he altered the essay, he's generally very forthright about when he's wrong and if there's a discrepancy between the TNR article and what he reposted I suspect it's not for the reason you suggest.
Either way, if you ignore the partisanship I don't think supporting the Iraq war was necessarily a conservative or liberal position. If one succeeded in deposing Iraq and replacing him with a relatively healthy democracy with minimal casualties you can make a pretty strong argument for the war from either end of the spectrum. Hitchens identified as a Marxist and I don't believe he ever repented of his support (other than the fact Bush was too incompetent to pull it off).
I saw this article recently on ThePunion.com, I'm sure of it.
Agreed, this reminds of one of those times when a paper in China or Russia rips a story from the Onion.
It still might be legit, according to the article:
But the order from the State Administration for Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television says: “Radio and television authorities at all levels must tighten up their regulations and crack down on the irregular and inaccurate use of the Chinese language, especially the misuse of idioms.”
Which is plausible as random bureaucrats sometimes issue brain dead rules which are quickly forgotten once the laughter dies down.
I'm too busy but we can crowdsource it.
The first sentence says he's a young guy who used to read books.
I knew one promising kid. Was building apache forks by the time he was two, built his own mircokernel when he was three. But then around three and a half some troublemaker in daycare slipped him a copy of Visual Studio and a VB.net book during naptime. By the time he hit four he's writing VB.net webapps for mars bars, six months later it's Windows Phone apps for smarties.
Poor kid never even made it to five, he got wet-willied trying to swipe a chocolate milk carton at lunch.
What a waste.
As long has he generates hits and comments he will be featured. You'd be better just ignoring his articles.
Not if people are just coming to complain, trolling your users isn't a sustainable model (well it is, but only if you make a 3rd party the direction of their rage).
That being said Bennett's proposal is fine, it's just not what people come to /. for. The same thing happened when they employed Jon Katz as a writer and his essays were regularly met with ire. /. calls itself a blog but it's really a news aggregator with some limited commentary. There's a big difference, people read blogs because they enjoy the author's voice and reputation, this is particularly true in the case of longer essay style posts, it's not even the quality of the writing as much as a matter of persona taste. There's no reason to think that Bennett fans and /. readers are groups with significant overlap which is why he lacks fans.
But more importantly there's a status issue, everyone who writes a comment is fighting to get their voice heard and is playing by the same rulebook. No matter how inciteful or amazing your comment the best you're going to get is a +5 hidden in the comments section*. People are going resent the fact that Bennett seemingly feels his musings are so insightful they deserve their own story, the editors deciding to agree with him doesn't help.
* There was a short lived /. experiment where they'd choose a handful of comments from a story then post a new story based around those highlighted comments, presumably as a way to honour top comments^H^H^Hrestart the discussion that had gotten so many page views. One of my comments chosen for one of these stories (I think it might have been the first one they did), which would be cool if the experiment lasted more than a couple weeks.
Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a good chance, it takes many right circumstances to happen.
What's more, to be relevant to us it must also coincide with our time frame. We've only been capable over interacting with extra-terrestrials for about 150 years of 2+B years of the Earth's existence. Another civilization would have to be both advanced (more than we are) and at the right time for us to meet.
Well we know other civs either go silent or don't exist because we don't hear them. But a silent civ isn't necessarily an irrelevant one. If relativity holds they probably haven't even heard of us yet, they might have probes that noticed stone age humans roaming around but they didn't know if we'd developed. And even if they have noticed us they may not be ready to contact us yet. Maybe they want to give us a million years or so to play around on our own first.
The issue with online news isn't that the interesting bits are hard to find. It's that everyone has different interesting bits, there's a ton of duplicated content, and it's hard to follow issues and tell when something new has happened. Plus crowdsourcing is going to be tough when you're following a moving target of quickly developing events.
I think a much cooler idea would be to arrange the facts in a timeline as stories develop across weeks and months. Basically a fancier version of timelines on Wikipedia with better visualizations. When you notice a story you could hop over and get a simple overview of the coverage, and if you're following a story over a period of time you could routinely hop over and see the main events that occurred.
Colonialism is a red herring. Everything is more interesting if you actually learn about Asian history rather than trying to mold it to prove a point.
As countries go China's political history was remarkably stable. How many modern nations actually existed in a recognizable form in 1644, much less 1000AD.
Anyway, my point wasn't that colonialism explains everything, but as a factor it does seem to explain a lot of the issues in a way that makes sense.
A country without stable political institutions is destabilized by power struggles at the local and national level. In a country where everybody understands who's in charge and they all agree they're part of the same country people can worry less about conflict and more about living. If African nations had strong central governments with loyal militaries there wouldn't be warlords driving around extorting villages. If they had a strong tradition of public servents then police wouldn't be corrupt. A stable society creates the opportunity to invest in the future, the whole point of colonialism was to disrupt the old order to impose a European one, it's not a surprise that native populations under colonialism don't fare well.
There will be exceptions to this as there are exceptions to any influencial force, but it seems to explain a lot.
Unless this hypothetical AI is singularly focused on some inscrutable but unobtrusive goal, or so vastly intelligent that various inconvenient physical laws are cleverly bent, I'm not sure why 'ignored' would even be on the table.
I'm not saying that an AI would have to immediately either glom on to us and try to understand what it means to love, or build an army of hunter/killer murderbots; computers require space, supplies of construction materials, and energy; and so do we. Again, barring some post-scarcity breakthrough that our teeny hominid minds can barely imagine, where the AI goes merrily off and builds a dyson hypersphere of sentient computronium powered by the emissions of the galactic core, there isn't too much room for expansion before either the AI faces brownouts and a lack of hardware upgrades or we start getting squeezed to make room.
You don't have to feel strongly about somebody to exterminate them, if you both need the same resources.
More than that.
Hawking is clearly concerned about the strong AI, as would most people, and as such most people will look for ways to contain or otherwise defend themselves against the possibility of the AI going hostile.
The AI would be a moron if it didn't take similar precautions, it has no reason to leave its existence at the whims of humans.
> Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
I'm sorry, but what? The Korean peninsula was the site of a major American/Soviet proxy war in the 50s, and the US still has troops stationed there to this day.
True but the Koreans never really lost self rule. Remember I'm talking about colonization and the resulting breakdown of the society and political tradition, not war.
China was practically owned by the British Empire after the Second Opium War, and it was only Japanese expansionism (which was brutal itself) that saved them from being swallowed by the West.
The resulting treaties had very favourable terms for the British (and the British got Hong Kong, which is an interesting counterexample to my general argument) but otherwise Chinese self-rule remained intact.
Japan was firebombed and nuked by the US, and it constitutionally has no military now - the US military is its military, for all intents and purposes.
And again Japan never really lost self-rule or got colonized.
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were also subject to a proxy wars, but the other side won. Mongolia was alternately part of the Soviet Union and China at various times.
And very little colonialism (though more than other parts of East Asia).
Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty much just the remnants of British imperialism. Indonesia is a product of Dutch colonialism. The Phillipines were a Spanish colony and then an American colony (formally!). Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, and Brunei were all British colonies.
Except for Singapore and Hong Kong the places you're describing are the least developed places in Asia (except those fully colonized like Australia and New Zealand).
What is now India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan were all under British rule at certain times. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan were all under Soviet rule. Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have all been under Turkish or Soviet rule at various points.
tl;dr: I just listed off practically every country in Asia (besides the Middle East). They have all been colonized.
And India isn't doing as well as China, and as for countries that were part of the USSR there's a general rule where the more independence they retained the more developed they are now.
Why is it that Africa is so continually backward, despite massive amounts of help, while everyone else is so much further ahead, even when they have nowhere near the natural resources or other benefits that Africa offers? It can't be blamed on "colonization" or "guns, germs and steel". If that were the case, then North America, Australia, South America and Asia would be as bad off as Africa is today. Yet obviously that isn't the case; they're all significantly better off.
Australia and North and South America were colonized, the successful subsets of their populations are European immigrants and the natives are doing horribly.
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
Africa is really the only place that experienced significant colonial rule without colonization, the destruction of their old political institutions and national boundaries without any new power structures put in place, it's not surprising that they're lagging behind.
I'm not going to pretend to have all of the answers, but when I look at the facts, something sure is off when it comes to Africa, especially when it's compared to the rest of the world.
I don't have the answers either, but a genetic IQ difference doesn't really fit the evidence.
Africa was doing better than Asia in the 50s prior to decolonization, so did their genes change in the last 60 years?
What about Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mongolia? Are their genes so different that they missed out on the Chinese/Japanese smarts?
I'm not saying a genetic IQ difference is impossible, but all the evidence of a genetic difference is better explained by other factors.
Why is this a federal charge? While I firmly believe all cops should wear cameras, I also firmly believe individual departments should be paying for them.
So the departments in poor neighbourhoods with lots of controvertial police interactions also have the cheap crappy cameras that fail all the time?
And then you had to go and ruin it with your accurate translation.
There's a reason people don't like foreigners!
This. Like having the Black Panthers at telling stations to intimidate voters into voting for their preferred candidate. Wait, that wasn't Republicans!
The funny thing is that your summary isn't even accurate. There's no reason to think the Democrats had anything to do with this, there's not even a reason to think the Black Panthers as an organization had anything to do with it.
The entire incident was three members of the New Black Panthers outside of one polling station!!
Sorry, tone can be hard to discern :)
Of all Linux distributions, Debian was *the* first choice for running servers, but since they decided to force systemd down users throats they have lost a lot of credibility in the BOFH world. A sysadmins first concern is reliability of its systems and this was also Debian's for a very long time. Clearly the adoption of systemd is not going in this direction. It seems to me that Devuan people understood that and want to take the now deserted land of server oriented distros. Of course the meaning for Debian is they will now have a hard time to compete with the whole lot of very good desktop distributions if they don't want to lose most of their users.
Then why aren't you hearing anything from the Red Hat customer base? If anyone wants reliability it's the enterprise which is Red Hat's entire market. The fact that nothing is coming from that side tells me that this is about something else entirely where people are more concerned about the political process and symbolism than the technical merits.
Maybe there is a big demand for a very stripped down low feature server distro, but I suspect this isn't going do become a big player.
Like Voter ID requirements?
Yes.
That turnout among black people went up in 2012 isn't that surprising. They were voting for a black president (who was the victim of many race based attacks) and voter ID were big news so people were motivated to come out in response.
And besides, it doesn't matter to my point whether it was effective electioneering, the fact that voter ID requirements are intended to boost Republican prospects by reducing minority voting makes them an egregious form of electioneering.
Well, it's in the Washington Bleep, so it must be true. The Bleep being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left for at least 42 years.
So someone disagrees with me and cites an article, and now you're criticizing me for referencing the very article they cited?
As far as I know that was never established, that was fan canon. In any case, while it sounds reasonable that the first batch of stormtroopers were mostly the left over clones, by the time the original trilogy starts those guys are getting on in age. By the time of the new trilogy, they'd definitely need new blood.
So why not just get a fresh batch of clones? The most canon thing to do might be to claim it's another batch of clones but updated with some genetic engineering to explain the different actor.