Would you silence a dissenting view? That is not healthy for scientific discourse, no matter how wrong you believe the dissenting view to be.
If you wish to silence them, silence them using facts, logic, and argument. Do not silence them through a political process. You would ask them to do the same for your.
I think it's a little simpler than that. If the rooms are publically available for booking then the University can't go discriminating on viewpoint, regardless of how nutty or objectionable the group in question, and the conference should be allowed to continue.
If however, the bookings are restricted to those associated with the University, such as the student group in question, and the conference was arranged by decieving that group (and harming their reputation in the process), then the conference should absolutely be cancelled.
That Amazon is stuck in low margin business that will never generate large profits. That the only way to expand is to offer lower prices than anybody else, resulting in a "Red Queen's Race", where everybody has to run faster just to stay where they are. If that is true, Amazon will never be able to generate "normal" profits, so future profits will be small, not large.
Only time will tell on who is right.
They're basically banking on being the Walmart of the Internet.
The advantage they have over Walmart is the Internet scales better than the physical world. So they can theoretically reduce their margins even further.
The disadvantage they have over Walmart is for any given shopper Walmart only has to compete against other local retails, but Amazon is always competing against the entire world.
That is why humans should try to stick their "ethnic ancestor" foods. [begin personal rant] Indian Indians (not American Indians) went through so many cycles of feast and famine. Only those who had the ability store fat in the times of plenty survived the lean times. When they get F-1 visa, then green card then citizenship and melt into the melting pot guzzling beer, eating pizza, their genomes are still gearing up for the next famine that could be just round the corner. Heart disease and diabetes is rampant among the immigrants from historically impoverished ethnic groups are very very susceptible to diseases of the plenty. Your body evolved to eat what your grandpa and his grandpa ate. If they eschewed bacon, stay clear of bacon. If they ate rice and lentils and ate samosa and jamoons only on festival feasts, you would do well to do the same. Stop ordering dessert in every meal and pigging out in the 9$ lunch buffet with unlimited mango lassi at India Palace. [end rant]
You're half right, though the issue might not be genetics but eipgenetics. Malnourishment while the mother is pregnant seems to affect the development of the feotus and make it prone to obesity. This makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary sense as ethnic groups will go through many cycles of bounty and famine through the generations, the best strategy isn't to chase an oscillating target, but to optimize your current build to whatever the most current conditions are.
That's what makes it hard to determine when evolution via genes is occurring vs purely environmental factors winnowing a current population.
To an evolutionary biologist, that statement doesn't make sense. What, exactly, is the distinction between "evolution via genes" and "purely environmental factors winnowing a population"? "Environmental factors winnowing a population" is natural selection, and that drives "evolution via genes". If the small-footed lizards drop off the trees and fail to reproduce, the frequency of alleles in the lizard population changes -- the alleles that favor large feet are now more common. This is "evolution via genes". Sure, some small-footed lizards might remain in the population, or smaller feet could become dominant if the selective pressures change, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not "evolution via genes" is occurring.
It does make sense because not all traits equally heritable.
Say a mad dictator killed all the people named Bob. Now the name Bob isn't very heritable. So while environmental factors will have completely altered the population, if the dictator and all his followers then got stuck in a grain elevator and died the next generation could return to its previous and unfortunate levels of Bobness immediately.
Height on the other hand is highly heritable, so if the dictator also killed all the tall people then the next generation would be much more environmentally friendly and convenient to store.
I think you need to have confidence in yourself and believe that you can do something. But then you need to do the actual work, solve the problems, work for success. To me, there is a difference between fantasizing about success and believing in your ability to achieve it.
In other words, I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV. That's positive thinking combined with realism and the willingness to do what you have to do.
So for the last couple months I've been working on a start-up idea in my spare time. The thought process "I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV." is a bad idea that turns me into a quivering blob hiding under my quilt.
The long term obstacles are certainly achievable, but they're also a ton of work and extremely daunting since I can't do anything about them for a long time.
If I want to get work done the key is to think of the long term goal but only the short term obstacles. I know X is still a very long way off, but I also know I can subtract a tangible Y and get closer to my goal.
I can also berate myself more effectively for being lazy, ie "to get closer to X all you have to do is a bit of Y, so why the hell are you wasting your time posting on/.?!?"
I suspect the optimal strategy is to dwell on the success just long enough to convince yourself the goal is achievable and then switch to the mindset of "ok, now I need to make it happen".
Too much thinking about the positive and you feel like you've already won and lose the motivation to put in the work.
But if you only dwell on the negatives your task seems impossible and you again have no reason to work.
My friend works at Bellevue, my other friend took the 1 train (train the doctor took to go bowling last night while experiencing "sick symptoms") the same night he did and I take the 1 train every day to and friend work.
It's bad in Africa because they have terrible heathcare. Instead of seeking medical care people get care from friends and family who don't know what they're doing, thus they become infected themselves and the disease spreads.
This guy having spread the disease on the train is possible, but very unlikely.
There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.
They are screened but the virus has an incubation period.
There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.
Customs: What was your reason for leaving the country? Doctor: I was treating patients with Ebola. Customs: Due to national security, we can not let you into the country until you've been tested and cleared. Doctor: But I have plans to go bowling in Brooklyn in about week! Customs: You're retarded.
A travel ban is a terrible idea, people will still travel from West Africa but they'll do it from other countries so we won't know to track them. A 3 week quarantine (outlast the incubation period) isn't much different due to its huge burden.
There is one good idea though, remember that saying about terrorists, "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". Well that's exactly the right approach for Ebola. If you want to protect the US from Ebola then you need to send US medical personnel and other resources to West Africa to help fight the outbreak. The risk to the US isn't a random few travellers from a handful of countries in West Africa. It's the disease continuing to flourish in West Africa and eventually popping up in India, China, and South America.
Whatever the ability of the US to handle a few lone cases it would be much worse for Brazil or Mexico. And whatever you think of the difficulty of keeping sick Africans out of the US it's far harder to keep out sick Mexicans.
If you want to stay safe then make it easy for US doctors to help in West Africa.
IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS
It's neither.
You still can't get it through the air, it has to be contact with the fluids of a sick person. But once you contact those fluids transmission is very easy.
if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?
i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have
They got it by treating very sick people who were covered with highly contagious fluids. Unless you've never made an error in your work I'm not sure you can rightly call them morons/
If having a Czar will concentrate more power in their hands then a Czar is what they'll create. We already have the CDC. If this were about solving disease problems then the President would give the CDC more funding if they needed it. This is not about solving problems but about power.
Isn't that the job of congress?
Besides, creating a Czar isn't about concentrating power, it's about appearing pro-active. If anyone asks what they're doing to fight Ebola they can say "hey, we're taking it so seriously we created a special position just to oversee the response!"
Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.
Well sexism was already in the fight so it might as well take a beating.
Anytime you have a single gender crew it's always male. But for this mission this very sensible set of metrics suggests the standard composition is completely wrong, I think that's worthwhile pointing out.
On a general point I don't agree it's sexist or racist when the traditionally oppressed gains an advantage. The problem with *isms isn't that they filter based on a characteristic, it's that they give a big unfair advantage or disadvantage to a group based on that characteristic. If you apply that filter in the opposite direction then you're reducing the size of the problem.
That's a good point as to the the drawbacks of the "do one thing and do it well" principle.
The individual tools get simpler, but some of the complexity pops up when you try to make them interact. So instead of complex programs we end up with complex and esoteric configurations that end users have to descipher.
I'm not a fan of everything involving systemd, but the idea of shoving a bunch of complexity into a well designed and reliable blob doesn't strike me as an intrinsically bad idea.
At the end of the day, he created and manages the largest open source project ever. More than 20 years on, it is still going strong. I am not about to find faults with his management style. People have been free to fork it and run with it. Nobody has done that. Perhaps a little bit of screaming every now and then is needed for this job.
He gave us Linux and he gave us git. Maybe we should stop nitpicking and say thank you for once.
The fact it's been a success doesn't mean it's been as successful as it could have been, nor does it mean it will continue to succeed in the future. The key to maintaining a successful project is to continually evaluate it. The current culture may work great, or it may be driving talented devs away from both the kernel and other projects that have followed its lead.
No one is doubting Linus' contributions, but that doesn't mean things can be even better.
I never read comics when I was a kid.(well, thats not true, I read Heavy Metal)
I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc).
I don't get this thing with comics. Most of the comic book based films are ok at best...
Are they really going to make that many comic book based films?
That is just sad.
There are so many good sci-fi and fantasy books/stories out there.
It would be nice if something not ending in "man" was made into a film.
I think there's two factors. First successful comics consist of a long running series. Even the best science fictions stories are pretty niche on a society level, how many people have actually read Caves of Steel or Ringworld?
But as for comics, even someone like myself who never read a comic book is familiar with every character listen there besides Shazam and Cyborg. Every comic movie already has a huge potential audience already familiar with and sympathetic to the source material, it's hard for books to match that.
The second factor has to do with the nature of the form.
A great book for adults requires compelling ideas, these are generally communicated through dialogue and introspection.
A movie has to communicate ideas though visuals and emotion, to make a great adult book into a movie you have to strip out what made it great and try to communicate that in a completely new manner, it's possible (2001: A Space Odyssey) but it's hard. Asimov was mostly discussing ideas and dialogue, do you really think that will translate into a great movie?
It's no mistake that almost all the successful science fiction book adaptions have been from the young adult market. Young adult fiction requires a lot of action and easy philosophy to keep the interest up, the exact same formula that creates a smart action film.
Comics on the other hand are a visual medium already, they're written to communicate using similar amounts of dialogue and action, movies are even filmed with the aid of story boards that aren't much different from a comic. To translate a great comic into a great movie is mostly just a task of translating the style.
One hope is that the patents look good to the prospective employer on a resume, but I don't want them to take the existing IP for granted as part of the deal.
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
If you worked for Oracle or Apple would they expect you to walk in the door with the source code to OS X or Oracle DB? If you mention an open source project you've worked on would they expect to get copyrights on all your contributions? Why should a patent be any different?
A resume isn't a business proposal saying what you'll do, it's a list of qualifications that shows what you've done. There should be absolutely no expectation that a license to any patents would be given to a future employer free of charge. If you think it will impress the employer and raise your chances then leave the patents on.
It has nothing to do with the bodies, or the fact that they disposed of them illegally. It has to do with the deaths that provided so many bodies to dispose of.
An average dog pound euthanizes around 10% of their intake. Explain why PETA euthanizes over 90% of theirs.
As I said previously PETA claims that they focus their intake efforts on animals that are generally unsuitable for adoption.
Could PETA be lying about this? Of course. I wouldn't trust PETA about a load of other stuff.
But let me turn the question around, why do you think PETA euthanizes over 90% of their intakes?
PETA members are about as hardcore as you can get when it comes to animal rights, I don't understand what you think is driving them to needlessly kill animals.
This isn't something that was made up by their detractors. It's cold hard facts PETA left in a dumpster for all the world to see.
And I've already discussed it previous comments in the thread. The only thing you seem to have added is criticism over how they dispose of the bodies, which raises the question of how you propose they dispose of the bodies, and why the body disposal method really matters in the first place.
They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.
The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.
So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.
So according to PETA the reason for their outsized euthanasia rate is their population of incoming animals is highly atypical.
Now you can assume they're lying and misleading, and the most extreme of the pro animal rights groups is also killing animals for fun, or you can consider the fact they're euthanizing those animals for a very good reason.
I don't understand why you're so convinced that these people who are so zealous they'll work for next to nothing are also killing animals for no cause.
If the 90% euthanization rate within ONE DAY is true, then do you really think that is a fair amount of time to wait for someone to adopt the animal before putting it down? _one_ _day_.
If they have enough experience to know the animal won't get adopted then yes.
Think of it this way. PETA is the most extreme of the major animal rights organizations, they're staffed by people who are so passionate that they're willing to endure ridicule and crappy pay to work for them.
Now either these animal rights nutbags who won't even drink milk because it enslaves cows are at the same time committing a completely unnecessary massacre of pets every day. Or, you've completely underestimated the necessity of euthanization.
Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"
Sure, if you know from experience that the particular animal will be almost impossible to place.
Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.
Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.
$35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.
First PETA doesn't take in $35 million a year to place less than two thousand animals. They take in $35 million to do everything that PETA currently does which includes paying 300 employees.
And yes, they'd get some food donations and volunteers, but do you realize how much food donations and volunteers would be required to care for 30,000 animals? And that's just for one year, animals typically live longer than that and with a no-kill policy they'd soon end up housing over a hundred thousand animals. Unless you expect them to have a small city dedicated to caring for those animals euthanasia is your only option.
I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.
Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster
I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.
I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.
So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
Or maybe they'll still hire you, they just want your dirty laundry in the open.
It's like any politician, it's not the bad stuff you admitted to that gets you, it's the bad stuff you lied about.
If I'm the FBI I'm worried about my agents having undisclosed secrets, not just for the potential of people blackmailing them, but because defence attorneys might find out those dirty secrets, use them to discredit an investigator, and get a case thrown out.
In that light if an applicant is so secretive they won't even admit to something as inane as copyright infringement then how do you expect that they'll disclose the serious stuff. For instance that one of their former best friends is now a drug smuggler so you shouldn't assign them to investigate a rival cartel so it doesn't look like an attempt to eliminate the competition.
Prior to Usain Bolt, the "experts" said that big/tall guys couldn't sprint. Bolt destroyed 100 years of such stupid speculations.
Now we have another set of stupid speculations about marathon running, almost certainly just as wrong.
Partially true though I think a factor there might be that height isn't a big factor. If height is only loosely correlated with sprinting speed then the typical height of elite sprinters will be the typical heights of the seed population.
As for marathon running they may be short because a shorter physiology is advantageous. Or may be short because the seed population (Ethiopians, Kenyans, Kalenjins particularly) is very short. If they can get taller with nutrition, and that doesn't adversely affect their running, then elite marathon runners may get taller too.
Given the $$$ incentives, we'll see 2:00:00 broken prior to 2020, and by someone previously unknown.
Very doubtful, to go from a 2:06:23 to 2:02:57 they needed to drop ~5 seconds/km, to drop below 2:00 they need to drop another ~5 seconds/km. Yes that's possible (and people can do it over the distance of a half marathon). But even assuming the current progression continues we're looking at another 16 years. If we assume the 16 years got a lot of the low hanging fruit (East African population getting access to elite coaching and training methods) we may start to see a stagnation in times.
But in the mean time, we'll see the world record broken perhaps another 25 times, because breaking the world record by 1 second pays just as well as breaking it by 10 seconds.
Google "Roland Matthes", who milked the system by breaking the world record by the minimal amount as many times as possible.
Well you've got 177 seconds to play with, which means you're projecting a 7 second margin for each increment, the typical margins have been 20-30 seconds though that will likely shrink the lower we go.
25 new world records by 2020 is a LOT harder than 2:00 by 2020. There's no risk of someone milking the system. Elite marathon runners have very short windows where they can set world records and they only do 2-3 marathons a year. even if you go in perfectly healthy and trained to have a WR shot not only do you need an ideal course (ie Berlin), but perfect weather too. For instance Reid Coolsaet has been trying to be the first Canadian to break the 2:10 barrier, and while he had a window of a few years where he was likely fast enough the factors never came together. Either no one else was at the right pace, the weather was poor, sick before the race, injury interfered with training, etc. He's still got a shot but the window is closing.
I wouldn't be shocked if 2:00 takes 25 world records, but if it does then we're looking at 2050 or 2075 to see it happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you silence a dissenting view? That is not healthy for scientific discourse, no matter how wrong you believe the dissenting view to be.
If you wish to silence them, silence them using facts, logic, and argument. Do not silence them through a political process. You would ask them to do the same for your.
I think it's a little simpler than that. If the rooms are publically available for booking then the University can't go discriminating on viewpoint, regardless of how nutty or objectionable the group in question, and the conference should be allowed to continue.
If however, the bookings are restricted to those associated with the University, such as the student group in question, and the conference was arranged by decieving that group (and harming their reputation in the process), then the conference should absolutely be cancelled.
"Profit marrgin"?
Is that calculated as gross booty - total cannonball expenditures?
That greatly deserves a +1, funny.
There's no longer a need.
A kind comment is superficial Internet validation enough.
That Amazon is stuck in low margin business that will never generate large profits. That the only way to expand is to offer lower prices than anybody else, resulting in a "Red Queen's Race", where everybody has to run faster just to stay where they are. If that is true, Amazon will never be able to generate "normal" profits, so future profits will be small, not large.
Only time will tell on who is right.
They're basically banking on being the Walmart of the Internet.
The advantage they have over Walmart is the Internet scales better than the physical world. So they can theoretically reduce their margins even further.
The disadvantage they have over Walmart is for any given shopper Walmart only has to compete against other local retails, but Amazon is always competing against the entire world.
That is why humans should try to stick their "ethnic ancestor" foods. [begin personal rant] Indian Indians (not American Indians) went through so many cycles of feast and famine. Only those who had the ability store fat in the times of plenty survived the lean times. When they get F-1 visa, then green card then citizenship and melt into the melting pot guzzling beer, eating pizza, their genomes are still gearing up for the next famine that could be just round the corner. Heart disease and diabetes is rampant among the immigrants from historically impoverished ethnic groups are very very susceptible to diseases of the plenty. Your body evolved to eat what your grandpa and his grandpa ate. If they eschewed bacon, stay clear of bacon. If they ate rice and lentils and ate samosa and jamoons only on festival feasts, you would do well to do the same. Stop ordering dessert in every meal and pigging out in the 9$ lunch buffet with unlimited mango lassi at India Palace. [end rant]
You're half right, though the issue might not be genetics but eipgenetics. Malnourishment while the mother is pregnant seems to affect the development of the feotus and make it prone to obesity. This makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary sense as ethnic groups will go through many cycles of bounty and famine through the generations, the best strategy isn't to chase an oscillating target, but to optimize your current build to whatever the most current conditions are.
That's what makes it hard to determine when evolution via genes is occurring vs purely environmental factors winnowing a current population.
To an evolutionary biologist, that statement doesn't make sense. What, exactly, is the distinction between "evolution via genes" and "purely environmental factors winnowing a population"? "Environmental factors winnowing a population" is natural selection, and that drives "evolution via genes". If the small-footed lizards drop off the trees and fail to reproduce, the frequency of alleles in the lizard population changes -- the alleles that favor large feet are now more common. This is "evolution via genes". Sure, some small-footed lizards might remain in the population, or smaller feet could become dominant if the selective pressures change, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not "evolution via genes" is occurring.
It does make sense because not all traits equally heritable.
Say a mad dictator killed all the people named Bob. Now the name Bob isn't very heritable. So while environmental factors will have completely altered the population, if the dictator and all his followers then got stuck in a grain elevator and died the next generation could return to its previous and unfortunate levels of Bobness immediately.
Height on the other hand is highly heritable, so if the dictator also killed all the tall people then the next generation would be much more environmentally friendly and convenient to store.
I think you need to have confidence in yourself and believe that you can do something. But then you need to do the actual work, solve the problems, work for success. To me, there is a difference between fantasizing about success and believing in your ability to achieve it.
In other words, I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV. That's positive thinking combined with realism and the willingness to do what you have to do.
So for the last couple months I've been working on a start-up idea in my spare time. The thought process "I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV." is a bad idea that turns me into a quivering blob hiding under my quilt.
The long term obstacles are certainly achievable, but they're also a ton of work and extremely daunting since I can't do anything about them for a long time.
If I want to get work done the key is to think of the long term goal but only the short term obstacles. I know X is still a very long way off, but I also know I can subtract a tangible Y and get closer to my goal.
I can also berate myself more effectively for being lazy, ie "to get closer to X all you have to do is a bit of Y, so why the hell are you wasting your time posting on /.?!?"
I suspect the optimal strategy is to dwell on the success just long enough to convince yourself the goal is achievable and then switch to the mindset of "ok, now I need to make it happen".
Too much thinking about the positive and you feel like you've already won and lose the motivation to put in the work.
But if you only dwell on the negatives your task seems impossible and you again have no reason to work.
"Profit marrgin"?
Is that calculated as gross booty - total cannonball expenditures?
My friend works at Bellevue, my other friend took the 1 train (train the doctor took to go bowling last night while experiencing "sick symptoms") the same night he did and I take the 1 train every day to and friend work.
It's bad in Africa because they have terrible heathcare. Instead of seeking medical care people get care from friends and family who don't know what they're doing, thus they become infected themselves and the disease spreads.
This guy having spread the disease on the train is possible, but very unlikely.
There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.
They are screened but the virus has an incubation period.
There are people arguing to shut down all travel from West Africa, even if that's too much in your opinion, at least screen these doctors.
Customs: What was your reason for leaving the country?
Doctor: I was treating patients with Ebola.
Customs: Due to national security, we can not let you into the country until you've been tested and cleared.
Doctor: But I have plans to go bowling in Brooklyn in about week!
Customs: You're retarded.
A travel ban is a terrible idea, people will still travel from West Africa but they'll do it from other countries so we won't know to track them. A 3 week quarantine (outlast the incubation period) isn't much different due to its huge burden.
There is one good idea though, remember that saying about terrorists, "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". Well that's exactly the right approach for Ebola. If you want to protect the US from Ebola then you need to send US medical personnel and other resources to West Africa to help fight the outbreak. The risk to the US isn't a random few travellers from a handful of countries in West Africa. It's the disease continuing to flourish in West Africa and eventually popping up in India, China, and South America.
Whatever the ability of the US to handle a few lone cases it would be much worse for Brazil or Mexico. And whatever you think of the difficulty of keeping sick Africans out of the US it's far harder to keep out sick Mexicans.
If you want to stay safe then make it easy for US doctors to help in West Africa.
IMHO, either Ebola is easier to transmit than we are being told _OR_ these Ebola doctors who get the disease are FSKING IDIOTS
It's neither.
You still can't get it through the air, it has to be contact with the fluids of a sick person. But once you contact those fluids transmission is very easy.
if it is so damn hard to get, how the hell do Doctors who should be the best at following procedure can get?
i think people are just morons, no matter what degrees they have
They got it by treating very sick people who were covered with highly contagious fluids. Unless you've never made an error in your work I'm not sure you can rightly call them morons/
If having a Czar will concentrate more power in their hands then a Czar is what they'll create. We already have the CDC. If this were about solving disease problems then the President would give the CDC more funding if they needed it. This is not about solving problems but about power.
Isn't that the job of congress?
Besides, creating a Czar isn't about concentrating power, it's about appearing pro-active. If anyone asks what they're doing to fight Ebola they can say "hey, we're taking it so seriously we created a special position just to oversee the response!"
Yeah, that's great and all, but the right way to post this is that the ideal astronaut has a low calorie requirements and leave unsaid that the people who can fill that role is women. No need to drag sexism into the fight when there are perfectly logical rationals for crew selection.
Well sexism was already in the fight so it might as well take a beating.
Anytime you have a single gender crew it's always male. But for this mission this very sensible set of metrics suggests the standard composition is completely wrong, I think that's worthwhile pointing out.
On a general point I don't agree it's sexist or racist when the traditionally oppressed gains an advantage. The problem with *isms isn't that they filter based on a characteristic, it's that they give a big unfair advantage or disadvantage to a group based on that characteristic. If you apply that filter in the opposite direction then you're reducing the size of the problem.
http://forkfedora.org/
Not really, but well made.
That's a good point as to the the drawbacks of the "do one thing and do it well" principle.
The individual tools get simpler, but some of the complexity pops up when you try to make them interact. So instead of complex programs we end up with complex and esoteric configurations that end users have to descipher.
I'm not a fan of everything involving systemd, but the idea of shoving a bunch of complexity into a well designed and reliable blob doesn't strike me as an intrinsically bad idea.
At the end of the day, he created and manages the largest open source project ever. More than 20 years on, it is still going strong. I am not about to find faults with his management style. People have been free to fork it and run with it. Nobody has done that. Perhaps a little bit of screaming every now and then is needed for this job.
He gave us Linux and he gave us git. Maybe we should stop nitpicking and say thank you for once.
The fact it's been a success doesn't mean it's been as successful as it could have been, nor does it mean it will continue to succeed in the future. The key to maintaining a successful project is to continually evaluate it. The current culture may work great, or it may be driving talented devs away from both the kernel and other projects that have followed its lead.
No one is doubting Linus' contributions, but that doesn't mean things can be even better.
I never read comics when I was a kid.(well, thats not true, I read Heavy Metal)
I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc).
I don't get this thing with comics. Most of the comic book based films are ok at best...
Are they really going to make that many comic book based films?
That is just sad.
There are so many good sci-fi and fantasy books/stories out there.
It would be nice if something not ending in "man" was made into a film.
I think there's two factors. First successful comics consist of a long running series. Even the best science fictions stories are pretty niche on a society level, how many people have actually read Caves of Steel or Ringworld?
But as for comics, even someone like myself who never read a comic book is familiar with every character listen there besides Shazam and Cyborg. Every comic movie already has a huge potential audience already familiar with and sympathetic to the source material, it's hard for books to match that.
The second factor has to do with the nature of the form.
A great book for adults requires compelling ideas, these are generally communicated through dialogue and introspection.
A movie has to communicate ideas though visuals and emotion, to make a great adult book into a movie you have to strip out what made it great and try to communicate that in a completely new manner, it's possible (2001: A Space Odyssey) but it's hard. Asimov was mostly discussing ideas and dialogue, do you really think that will translate into a great movie?
It's no mistake that almost all the successful science fiction book adaptions have been from the young adult market. Young adult fiction requires a lot of action and easy philosophy to keep the interest up, the exact same formula that creates a smart action film.
Comics on the other hand are a visual medium already, they're written to communicate using similar amounts of dialogue and action, movies are even filmed with the aid of story boards that aren't much different from a comic. To translate a great comic into a great movie is mostly just a task of translating the style.
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
If you worked for Oracle or Apple would they expect you to walk in the door with the source code to OS X or Oracle DB? If you mention an open source project you've worked on would they expect to get copyrights on all your contributions? Why should a patent be any different?
A resume isn't a business proposal saying what you'll do, it's a list of qualifications that shows what you've done. There should be absolutely no expectation that a license to any patents would be given to a future employer free of charge. If you think it will impress the employer and raise your chances then leave the patents on.
It has nothing to do with the bodies, or the fact that they disposed of them illegally. It has to do with the deaths that provided so many bodies to dispose of.
An average dog pound euthanizes around 10% of their intake. Explain why PETA euthanizes over 90% of theirs.
As I said previously PETA claims that they focus their intake efforts on animals that are generally unsuitable for adoption.
Could PETA be lying about this? Of course. I wouldn't trust PETA about a load of other stuff.
But let me turn the question around, why do you think PETA euthanizes over 90% of their intakes?
PETA members are about as hardcore as you can get when it comes to animal rights, I don't understand what you think is driving them to needlessly kill animals.
quantaman says: "Of all the things PETA is guilty of being callous towards animals is not one of them."
Really??
https://www.petakillsanimals.c...
This isn't something that was made up by their detractors. It's cold hard facts PETA left in a dumpster for all the world to see.
And I've already discussed it previous comments in the thread. The only thing you seem to have added is criticism over how they dispose of the bodies, which raises the question of how you propose they dispose of the bodies, and why the body disposal method really matters in the first place.
We get it, dude! You fucking work for PETA so they can do no wrong. You and the tranny can quit your bitching!
On the contrary I think PETA is completely ridiculous in their view of animal rights.
What I'm arguing against is bone-headed criticism of them. Of all the things PETA is guilty of being callous towards animals is not one of them.
They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.
The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.
So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.
Well according to the source:
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.
So according to PETA the reason for their outsized euthanasia rate is their population of incoming animals is highly atypical.
Now you can assume they're lying and misleading, and the most extreme of the pro animal rights groups is also killing animals for fun, or you can consider the fact they're euthanizing those animals for a very good reason.
I don't understand why you're so convinced that these people who are so zealous they'll work for next to nothing are also killing animals for no cause.
If the 90% euthanization rate within ONE DAY is true, then do you really think that is a fair amount of time to wait for someone to adopt the animal before putting it down? _one_ _day_.
If they have enough experience to know the animal won't get adopted then yes.
Think of it this way. PETA is the most extreme of the major animal rights organizations, they're staffed by people who are so passionate that they're willing to endure ridicule and crappy pay to work for them.
Now either these animal rights nutbags who won't even drink milk because it enslaves cows are at the same time committing a completely unnecessary massacre of pets every day. Or, you've completely underestimated the necessity of euthanization.
Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"
Sure, if you know from experience that the particular animal will be almost impossible to place.
Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.
Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.
$35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.
First PETA doesn't take in $35 million a year to place less than two thousand animals. They take in $35 million to do everything that PETA currently does which includes paying 300 employees.
And yes, they'd get some food donations and volunteers, but do you realize how much food donations and volunteers would be required to care for 30,000 animals? And that's just for one year, animals typically live longer than that and with a no-kill policy they'd soon end up housing over a hundred thousand animals. Unless you expect them to have a small city dedicated to caring for those animals euthanasia is your only option.
I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.
Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster
I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.
I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.
So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
Then they won't hire you.
Or maybe they'll still hire you, they just want your dirty laundry in the open.
It's like any politician, it's not the bad stuff you admitted to that gets you, it's the bad stuff you lied about.
If I'm the FBI I'm worried about my agents having undisclosed secrets, not just for the potential of people blackmailing them, but because defence attorneys might find out those dirty secrets, use them to discredit an investigator, and get a case thrown out.
In that light if an applicant is so secretive they won't even admit to something as inane as copyright infringement then how do you expect that they'll disclose the serious stuff. For instance that one of their former best friends is now a drug smuggler so you shouldn't assign them to investigate a rival cartel so it doesn't look like an attempt to eliminate the competition.
Prior to Usain Bolt, the "experts" said that big/tall guys couldn't sprint. Bolt destroyed 100 years of such stupid speculations.
Now we have another set of stupid speculations about marathon running, almost certainly just as wrong.
Partially true though I think a factor there might be that height isn't a big factor. If height is only loosely correlated with sprinting speed then the typical height of elite sprinters will be the typical heights of the seed population.
As for marathon running they may be short because a shorter physiology is advantageous. Or may be short because the seed population (Ethiopians, Kenyans, Kalenjins particularly) is very short. If they can get taller with nutrition, and that doesn't adversely affect their running, then elite marathon runners may get taller too.
Given the $$$ incentives, we'll see 2:00:00 broken prior to 2020, and by someone previously unknown.
Very doubtful, to go from a 2:06:23 to 2:02:57 they needed to drop ~5 seconds/km, to drop below 2:00 they need to drop another ~5 seconds/km. Yes that's possible (and people can do it over the distance of a half marathon). But even assuming the current progression continues we're looking at another 16 years. If we assume the 16 years got a lot of the low hanging fruit (East African population getting access to elite coaching and training methods) we may start to see a stagnation in times.
But in the mean time, we'll see the world record broken perhaps another 25 times, because breaking the world record by 1 second pays just as well as breaking it by 10 seconds.
Google "Roland Matthes", who milked the system by breaking the world record by the minimal amount as many times as possible.
Well you've got 177 seconds to play with, which means you're projecting a 7 second margin for each increment, the typical margins have been 20-30 seconds though that will likely shrink the lower we go.
25 new world records by 2020 is a LOT harder than 2:00 by 2020. There's no risk of someone milking the system. Elite marathon runners have very short windows where they can set world records and they only do 2-3 marathons a year. even if you go in perfectly healthy and trained to have a WR shot not only do you need an ideal course (ie Berlin), but perfect weather too. For instance Reid Coolsaet has been trying to be the first Canadian to break the 2:10 barrier, and while he had a window of a few years where he was likely fast enough the factors never came together. Either no one else was at the right pace, the weather was poor, sick before the race, injury interfered with training, etc. He's still got a shot but the window is closing.
I wouldn't be shocked if 2:00 takes 25 world records, but if it does then we're looking at 2050 or 2075 to see it happen.