Ditto to this. If critics were to equally discredit every group based on the worst behaviour of members of that group then every reputable research organisation would be destroyed.
The issue here isn't the people in the group, but the actual beliefs that define the group.
The defining belief of Christian Science involves avoiding modern medicine in favour of healing through prayer. This is a belief that kills people.
As a responsible and humane person I believe it's my duty to criticize them.
The problem with the CSM isn't that the news is suspect, it's that it advertises (though name and association) a fairly harmful religion.
Christian Science is not only into faith healing, but they actually encourage their members to avoid modern medicine (including vaccines). For all that people were talking about boycotting Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card's beliefs against homosexuals. I'm doubtful that Christian Science is any more accepting of gays, but even if they are Christian Science is still killing members through their health practices. And while the effects of an Ender's Game boycott on gay rights are fairy dubious, the success of the Christian Science Monitor directly benefits Christian Science.
Their contributions to journalism are fine and I'm not sure I'd actually boycott them, but just because the paper is good doesn't mean they don't cause harm in other ways.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
The justifications aren't tortured. At this point, the justifications of the copyright cartel are pretty tortured, though.
I'm sorry but that justification is pretty tortured.
I pirate too and I have my justifications. For music when I know the album and can buy DRM free files I'll buy. If there isn't a DRM-free option, or I don't know the album that well, I'll probably pirate. I'm also more willing to send money to smaller artists who would really miss it.
For TV and movies there's some legal online broadcasts, and netflicks helps too, but not all shows have online broadcasts, netflicks doesn't work on Linux, and DVDs are super expensive. If there's a legal way, even with ads, I'll watch that way. Otherwise I'll probably pirate.
It's immoral for me to pirate, but not seriously so, and if the media infrastructure changed sufficiently I'd stop. I'm willing to admit I'm doing a mildly bad thing if it means I don't have to lie to myself.
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work. The copyright cartel makes sure of that. Musicians don't get their royalties, and film crews are constantly the victims of bizarro accounting rules where no matter what happens, the film always "lost money."
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
What do you call the opposite of a tinfoil hatter? Someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence still believes the lies of the slave driver? A Stockholmer? This is you. Welcome to your new label.
Politicians making screwy laws and studios using Hollywood accounting means they're unsympathetic crooks, but it doesn't let us off the hook morally speaking.
Yeah, looks like the Telegraph is just trying to drum up pageviews.
I'm guessing they algorithm used is pretty simple, text mine for pairs of nouns that share a common adjective and you have your joke.
It wouldn't be surprising if the funniest pairings were risque since breaking social norms is one of the basis for humour, I'm actually surprised they couldn't find actual misogynist examples. Depending on the telling even this one "I like my women like I like my gas... natural (misogynistic)" is potentially non-misogynist since it's advocating against plastic surgery.
Sexual dimorphism is not caused by "societal norms", it is caused by genetics and specifically testosterone.
It is started by testosterone, but societal norms reinforce what would otherwise be a much smaller difference.
Also, remember that muscle mass only helps for short-duration exercise. When it comes to extended things, like 50 mile treks through jungle or ultra-marathons, women are just as competitive if not better than men.
It would be cool if this was true, but if it was true there would be more experimental evidence of the performance gap dropping as the distance increased among runners in general (not just matched populations). You can see the problem with the design in the abstract:
recent best running speeds (m.s-1) of 28 female ultramarathon runners over racing distances from 5 to 90 km were compared with those of male runners matched for 56 km race time, age and training. [...] The negative slope and the X-axis intercept of this equation at 66 km supports the hypothesis that women ultramarathon runners have greater fatigue resistance than do equally trained men whose performances are superior up to the marathon distance.
But the men and women weren't equally fit, they just had the same 56k time and training (though I'm dubious how they could match the training). I suspect the women were in much better shape to be able to match the men at 56k, and it was the longer distances where this advantage expressed itself.
The most generous interpretation you can take is that males have a relatively better performance at shorter distances and women longer. So if you get a guy and girl who are matched at X than the guy will be faster running X/2 and the girl X*2, but it doesn't say actually that men in general are faster at running X/2 or women at X*2. And if you assume that men have better baseline performance than the women would be better trained, which would become a factor in the longer distances.
Odd this came up because just this weekend I ran a 30k with my girlfriend. She'd actually done a 42k training run the day before and handled the 30k very well, probably a lot better than I'd do right now. She'd probably beat me at an 80k and would at least push me over a 42k, however I can still dominate her at anything under 21k.
But go back a couple years to when I was in shape and my times would have been far faster than hers at the ultra distances as well.
We actually talked about the performance gap in distance running and while body fat % might be a factor she suggested bone structure, particularly the hips, played a big role in running economy and elite women runners tended to have narrower hips.
What is always amusing about these discussions is how shocked people from certain segments of society are about real or perceived bias on the part of Fox news. Do these people really not know how much bias is present on the part of the press with respect to "their" side?
Social scientists (such as John Lott) have repeatedly demonstrated bias on the part of many press organizations, with some really solid research in which the evidence shows this beyond any possibility of doubt. Historians, also, are very aware of the issue of bias and incorrect reporting on the part of the press.
This John Lott? Is a paid Fox News contributor who wrote a book called "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?" really a credible source for this claim?
Saying the New York Times is biased just like Fox News is like saying Bush violated the constitution just like Assad.
Most reporters have their own beliefs and perspective and they do their best to remain unbiased in spite of that, but you still need to be aware.
Fox News on the other hand will happily lie and then repeat that lie to push their narrative. They're a cynical satire of a news organization.
I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate.
"Moderate"? Compared to what? There is almost endless evidence that Fox News intentionally presents a staunchly conservative viewpoint and they have an audience to match. It's not even a meaningful debate at this point.
You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one.
Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...
Fox News can be a bit odd. Next time you're reading about an event open google news and look at the Fox News stories as well, they tend to be relatively mainstream with a mild conservative bias.
But mixed in with the news are their pundits and opinion pieces, and that's when they go off the deep end. They'll have some fact based coverage followed by analysis that is completely detached from reality.
The relatively rational news could be the reporters pushing back but I suspect it's a deliberate tactic. Give a balanced story so the viewers feel informed, but then pump them full of deranged analysis so you control their opinions.
They recently started offering a lot of first-generation iPads for a couple hundred dollars each as well.
A couple hundred? I got a second generation iPad on eBay for a couple hundred, not too long ago.
I'm sure there's a market for folks buying iPad1s, but they've got to get a deep enough discount acquiring the refurbished equipment to sell them for a "fair" price.
They make it out to be the big online retailers selling at a loss -- when it's not. Something was broken with Geeks' business model, or the execution -- it worked once, but the environment changes over time.
Or they've got to offer something eBay can't. eBay is always going to be a bit of a stressful experience, what are the shipping charges? do they ship to your country? is the seller credible? what exactly are they selling (since every page is formatted a little different)? what is the quality like?
ThinkGeek seems to do alright, they can't really out compete amazon on breadth or value so they don't even try. They embrace their niche and can offer a much better experience for consumers in that niche.
There's a niche for a company that sells refurbished equipment at a higher price than eBay but offers a more polished experience. Either geeks.com didn't execute or they didn't get the word out.
What? Ayn Rand could be wrong? The shock and horror of it!
Um, didn't Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon cooperate to build the John Galt Line?
Rand's protagonists cooperated all the the time, and of course also provided value to their voluntary customers - what they tried not to do is let their property be controlled or taken involuntarily by government.
Ask yourself, what is the difference between cooperation and theft? Isn't it whether you volunteer to participate?
This paper was about evolution favouring cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma. The central lesson of Atlas Shrugged is not sacrificing yourself for someone else's benefit, translated to a prisoner's dilemma it implies non-cooperation.
The cooperation you're referring to that was in Atlas Shrugged made more money for both parties than non-cooperation, just about any moral system is fine with that sort of cooperation.
Yakel said the companies are not permitted to offer their services at SFO and they are now being arrested for unlawful trespassing.
Except it doesn't really describe what the services are. Is ridesharing something like couchsurfing, and the drivers volunteers and and the companies just coordinating?
Later on it has:
He said the drivers are simply offering rides to people for a donation,
Which makes me think the drivers are looking to make some money (ie "suggested donation") and the companies are charging a connection fee. Either way the article doesn't explain the business model or the motivations of the drivers well enough for me to form an opinion.
Nature has been genetically modifying fruit for millions of years. Genetic modifications can be good, bad, or some of each.
I support GMO food but this line of defense has always struck me as a bit suspect.
Natural genetic modifications are random, most are completely useless, a few mildly bad, and a smaller handful mildly good.
Even when we're using controlled breeding we're still constrained by those natural mechanisms which aren't terribly precise or effective.
Genetic modification allows us to change the genomes directly and that's a much more effective tool. Say you want to make a pest resistant tomato and screw up so the pesticide ends up in the fruit.
If you do that with breeding it will take a really long time, and you'll have a long period of tomatoes getting mildly more poisonous where you can catch your error.
Do it with genetic modification you can have a poisonous tomato in one generation.
I still think they're a really good idea, but we need to recognize that our ability to screw up improves with our toolbox.
It's a frigging web comic, not Tolstoy. Who, other than obsessive-compulsive fanboys would bother to check it for updates more than once a week or so?
It just goes to show; too much success can turn just about anyone into a diva who thinks that the world hangs on their every word (even a supposedly down-to-earth science guy).
Kinda reminds me of megatokyo or penny arcade - good web comics in their own right, but suddenly the author(s) get to thinking they're some kind of genius / saint / high-artiste.
They're not poseurs, they're at the forefront of the medium and the success they've achieved is as a result of their talents.
xkcd isn't always the funniest (though it has some real classics), but it's definitely the most innovative. The Time comic is a weird intersection of comic and animation, it's probably not going to become a new style but he did something original AND good, and that's a rare talent.
Having been a grad student is not the same as being a Ph.D and yes, there is a big difference.
No doubt. I'm just trying to figure out the scope of her lying. She had a high profile academic career so her credentials should have been quite widely known. Lying on the grant application is still illegal, but I don't think it would have been feasible for her to claim a PhD on a regular basis.
Berlowitz falsely claimed to have received a doctorate from New York University
I'm assuming she only lied on the grant applications since she was also the Vice President for Institutional Advancement at New York University. Presumably they would have noticed if she falsely claimed to have a doctorate from them.
If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. I just wish we would be totally open about it. Since we can probably assume all the runners are at least trying to do something like that, we can just ignore it.
This is like trying to find a winner for the tour de france that was not doping in some form, good luck. That sport is more properly referred to as cheating on two wheels.
Right now doping really only happens at the elite level, and the elite level athletes have elite doctors that stop them from hurting themselves.
But if you allow it at the elite level then the far larger number of athletes in junior and the sub-elite level are also going to dope. And they don't have the elite doctors to supervise so a lot of them are going to seriously harm themselves.
The current approach seems to be to allow the doping but to put up enough road blocks so the effect is kept relatively minimal.
I certainly wouldn't be shocked if Bolt was doping but he's the one champion from the traditionally dirty sports where I actually think he could be clean.
Basically Bolt is a freak, he has a physique that is obviously different from other elite sprinters. If his a-typical physiology is inferior I don't see how he could dope enough to achieve the dominance he has. And if his physiology is superior then we don't understand the scale of the physiological advantage well enough to know that he'd need drugs.
It's like when the Kenyans showed up on the distance running scene. If there were drugs the Europeans were taking they didn't make a difference, the Kenyans had an entirely different body type which gave them an advantage that drugs couldn't match.
Populations can compel sacrifice through social means but I don't think there's really a genetic mechanism, from what I understand group selection just isn't that good.
There's a powerful motivation for empathy which is cooperation and alliances. I don't want to ally with a psychopath since they're very likely to betray me, the only way I'll trust them is if they deceive me into thinking they're not a psychopath. This is a high risk strategy, maybe it's a little easier to pull off in modern society where there's a lot more minor relationships, but certainly in tribal society it's hard to be a psychopath and remain trusted.
Empathy makes it easy to play a long game and build trusted relationships because you're rewarded for playing a long game instead of a short one.
We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world
Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one
If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!
Also from TFA The five fatal attacks in WA waters in just under 12 months, which earned the state the unwelcome tag of shark attack capital of the world, prompted the research into the suits more than two years ago.
You seem to be working from different figures.
That being said I'd agree that most people overestimate the risk from shark, but they also overestimate the risk of being mauled by a bear. But if I go to an area with a lot of aggressive bears that risk can get a lot higher so it's a really good idea to bring some bear spray, similarly if I'm spending a lot of time surfing in shark infested waters I might not want to look like a seal.
dirt cheap hardware made in China and an excellent free OS (Android) or a nearly free OS (Apple.)
Not to troll, but when you look at the cost difference between an iPad and an Andriod Tablet with similar or better hardware, the Apple OS is not "nearly free". Unless Apple is buying *REALLY* expensive packaging...
iOS uses the Darwin kernel which uses an Open Source license.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
This is obviously wrong. It does have political and cultural value. After all, the video spawned this entire debate.
I'm not sure having a debate about whether it should be banned or has any worth at all is a valid example of spawning political debate:)
What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.
See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.
It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.
I personally would feel better if rotton.com and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
It basically comes down to this. If you believe in absolutely unfettered free speech than this video is allowed.
If you believe in any decency restrictions at all, then this video is probably out.
I don't agree with these charges or decency restrictions on speech, though I'd order it pulled on the grounds it shows an actual person's body being dismembered, but I think this video is so far beyond anything else that you can ban it and leave the rest of the disturbing stuff untouched.
I don't think the publication ban is relevant here. In practice publication bans only affect the media and don't bother blogs that much, plus the video detailed Magnotta even being identified as the killer.
The site was a really twisted gore website that Magnotta frequented (I recall hearing that he'd freaked out even website members and they'd contacted the police on previous occasions). After Magnotta killed Lin he sent the video to the website of him doing really bad things to the body (I don't think Lin was killed on camera). The operator posted the video and then he (or other site members) contacted the police about the video.
Thankfully the vast majority those gang-owned guns are already illegal. So I'm sure they'll all disappear soon, because as we all know, criminals always obey gun laws.
They aren't running gun factories, those guns all started out legal before they made it to the gangs.
Ban the purchase of handguns. It's that simple. The supply dries up and all the gangs are going to run out sooner rather than later.
However, I have to disagree with the last sentence... we live in a violent society... whatever the underlying reasons, it's a true statement... yes, most of us frankly never encounter violence, thankfully, but it's there and all around us... given no other societal changes, would removing guns make confrontations less likely? I don't see how, in fact, it seems to me they'd be MORE likely... if I'm sure that guy I beat to the parking space at the grocery store doesn't have a gun then it seems I'd be MORE likely to do it and risk pissing him off because the worst that happens is a fist fight.
The US as a whole is a violent society, but for the majority it's a fairly peaceful society. I don't know what happens to middle class suburbanites when you remove guns, a tiny uptick in violence, or a tiny drop, but I don't think it's significant either way. I live in Canada and it's generally very peaceful and no one carries concealed or otherwise.
It's the poor who live in a violent society, and the times when a gun really does help you in self-defense it's usually defending from a poor person. If we get rid of the guns among the poorer parts of society we get rid of a lot of the violence. Toronto is our only city with a serious inner city gang problem, and it's only in the last few years when guns showed up that the bodies started piling up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto to this.
If critics were to equally discredit every group based on the worst behaviour of members of that group then every reputable research organisation would be destroyed.
The issue here isn't the people in the group, but the actual beliefs that define the group.
The defining belief of Christian Science involves avoiding modern medicine in favour of healing through prayer. This is a belief that kills people.
As a responsible and humane person I believe it's my duty to criticize them.
The problem with the CSM isn't that the news is suspect, it's that it advertises (though name and association) a fairly harmful religion.
Christian Science is not only into faith healing, but they actually encourage their members to avoid modern medicine (including vaccines). For all that people were talking about boycotting Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card's beliefs against homosexuals. I'm doubtful that Christian Science is any more accepting of gays, but even if they are Christian Science is still killing members through their health practices. And while the effects of an Ender's Game boycott on gay rights are fairy dubious, the success of the Christian Science Monitor directly benefits Christian Science.
Their contributions to journalism are fine and I'm not sure I'd actually boycott them, but just because the paper is good doesn't mean they don't cause harm in other ways.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
The justifications aren't tortured. At this point, the justifications of the copyright cartel are pretty tortured, though.
I'm sorry but that justification is pretty tortured.
I pirate too and I have my justifications. For music when I know the album and can buy DRM free files I'll buy. If there isn't a DRM-free option, or I don't know the album that well, I'll probably pirate. I'm also more willing to send money to smaller artists who would really miss it.
For TV and movies there's some legal online broadcasts, and netflicks helps too, but not all shows have online broadcasts, netflicks doesn't work on Linux, and DVDs are super expensive. If there's a legal way, even with ads, I'll watch that way. Otherwise I'll probably pirate.
It's immoral for me to pirate, but not seriously so, and if the media infrastructure changed sufficiently I'd stop. I'm willing to admit I'm doing a mildly bad thing if it means I don't have to lie to myself.
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work. The copyright cartel makes sure of that. Musicians don't get their royalties, and film crews are constantly the victims of bizarro accounting rules where no matter what happens, the film always "lost money."
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
What do you call the opposite of a tinfoil hatter? Someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence still believes the lies of the slave driver? A Stockholmer? This is you. Welcome to your new label.
Politicians making screwy laws and studios using Hollywood accounting means they're unsympathetic crooks, but it doesn't let us off the hook morally speaking.
Yeah, looks like the Telegraph is just trying to drum up pageviews.
I'm guessing they algorithm used is pretty simple, text mine for pairs of nouns that share a common adjective and you have your joke.
It wouldn't be surprising if the funniest pairings were risque since breaking social norms is one of the basis for humour, I'm actually surprised they couldn't find actual misogynist examples. Depending on the telling even this one "I like my women like I like my gas ... natural (misogynistic)" is potentially non-misogynist since it's advocating against plastic surgery.
Sexual dimorphism is not caused by "societal norms", it is caused by genetics and specifically testosterone.
It is started by testosterone, but societal norms reinforce what would otherwise be a much smaller difference.
Also, remember that muscle mass only helps for short-duration exercise. When it comes to extended things, like 50 mile treks through jungle or ultra-marathons, women are just as competitive if not better than men.
It would be cool if this was true, but if it was true there would be more experimental evidence of the performance gap dropping as the distance increased among runners in general (not just matched populations). You can see the problem with the design in the abstract:
recent best running speeds (m.s-1) of 28 female ultramarathon runners over racing distances from 5 to 90 km were compared with those of male runners matched for 56 km race time, age and training.
[...]
The negative slope and the X-axis intercept of this equation at 66 km supports the hypothesis that women ultramarathon runners have greater fatigue resistance than do equally trained men whose performances are superior up to the marathon distance.
But the men and women weren't equally fit, they just had the same 56k time and training (though I'm dubious how they could match the training). I suspect the women were in much better shape to be able to match the men at 56k, and it was the longer distances where this advantage expressed itself.
The most generous interpretation you can take is that males have a relatively better performance at shorter distances and women longer. So if you get a guy and girl who are matched at X than the guy will be faster running X/2 and the girl X*2, but it doesn't say actually that men in general are faster at running X/2 or women at X*2. And if you assume that men have better baseline performance than the women would be better trained, which would become a factor in the longer distances.
Odd this came up because just this weekend I ran a 30k with my girlfriend. She'd actually done a 42k training run the day before and handled the 30k very well, probably a lot better than I'd do right now. She'd probably beat me at an 80k and would at least push me over a 42k, however I can still dominate her at anything under 21k.
But go back a couple years to when I was in shape and my times would have been far faster than hers at the ultra distances as well.
We actually talked about the performance gap in distance running and while body fat % might be a factor she suggested bone structure, particularly the hips, played a big role in running economy and elite women runners tended to have narrower hips.
What is always amusing about these discussions is how shocked people from certain segments of society are about real or perceived bias on the part of Fox news. Do these people really not know how much bias is present on the part of the press with respect to "their" side?
Social scientists (such as John Lott) have repeatedly demonstrated bias on the part of many press organizations, with some really solid research in which the evidence shows this beyond any possibility of doubt. Historians, also, are very aware of the issue of bias and incorrect reporting on the part of the press.
This John Lott? Is a paid Fox News contributor who wrote a book called "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?" really a credible source for this claim?
Saying the New York Times is biased just like Fox News is like saying Bush violated the constitution just like Assad.
Most reporters have their own beliefs and perspective and they do their best to remain unbiased in spite of that, but you still need to be aware.
Fox News on the other hand will happily lie and then repeat that lie to push their narrative. They're a cynical satire of a news organization.
I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate.
"Moderate"? Compared to what? There is almost endless evidence that Fox News intentionally presents a staunchly conservative viewpoint and they have an audience to match. It's not even a meaningful debate at this point.
You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one.
Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...
Fox News can be a bit odd. Next time you're reading about an event open google news and look at the Fox News stories as well, they tend to be relatively mainstream with a mild conservative bias.
But mixed in with the news are their pundits and opinion pieces, and that's when they go off the deep end. They'll have some fact based coverage followed by analysis that is completely detached from reality.
The relatively rational news could be the reporters pushing back but I suspect it's a deliberate tactic. Give a balanced story so the viewers feel informed, but then pump them full of deranged analysis so you control their opinions.
They recently started offering a lot of first-generation iPads for a couple hundred dollars each as well.
A couple hundred?
I got a second generation iPad on eBay for a couple hundred, not too long ago.
I'm sure there's a market for folks buying iPad1s, but they've got to get a deep enough discount acquiring the refurbished equipment to sell them for a "fair" price.
They make it out to be the big online retailers selling at a loss -- when it's not.
Something was broken with Geeks' business model, or the execution -- it worked once, but the environment changes over time.
Or they've got to offer something eBay can't. eBay is always going to be a bit of a stressful experience, what are the shipping charges? do they ship to your country? is the seller credible? what exactly are they selling (since every page is formatted a little different)? what is the quality like?
ThinkGeek seems to do alright, they can't really out compete amazon on breadth or value so they don't even try. They embrace their niche and can offer a much better experience for consumers in that niche.
There's a niche for a company that sells refurbished equipment at a higher price than eBay but offers a more polished experience. Either geeks.com didn't execute or they didn't get the word out.
What? Ayn Rand could be wrong? The shock and horror of it!
Um, didn't Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon cooperate to build the John Galt Line?
Rand's protagonists cooperated all the the time, and of course also provided value to their voluntary customers - what they tried not to do is let their property be controlled or taken involuntarily by government.
Ask yourself, what is the difference between cooperation and theft? Isn't it whether you volunteer to participate?
Go watch the movie!
This paper was about evolution favouring cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma. The central lesson of Atlas Shrugged is not sacrificing yourself for someone else's benefit, translated to a prisoner's dilemma it implies non-cooperation.
The cooperation you're referring to that was in Atlas Shrugged made more money for both parties than non-cooperation, just about any moral system is fine with that sort of cooperation.
try just one more time!
Hint: its the 5th sentence.
Here's the 5th sentence from the article.
Yakel said the companies are not permitted to offer their services at SFO and they are now being arrested for unlawful trespassing.
Except it doesn't really describe what the services are. Is ridesharing something like couchsurfing, and the drivers volunteers and and the companies just coordinating?
Later on it has:
He said the drivers are simply offering rides to people for a donation,
Which makes me think the drivers are looking to make some money (ie "suggested donation") and the companies are charging a connection fee. Either way the article doesn't explain the business model or the motivations of the drivers well enough for me to form an opinion.
Nature has been genetically modifying fruit for millions of years. Genetic modifications can be good, bad, or some of each.
I support GMO food but this line of defense has always struck me as a bit suspect.
Natural genetic modifications are random, most are completely useless, a few mildly bad, and a smaller handful mildly good.
Even when we're using controlled breeding we're still constrained by those natural mechanisms which aren't terribly precise or effective.
Genetic modification allows us to change the genomes directly and that's a much more effective tool. Say you want to make a pest resistant tomato and screw up so the pesticide ends up in the fruit.
If you do that with breeding it will take a really long time, and you'll have a long period of tomatoes getting mildly more poisonous where you can catch your error.
Do it with genetic modification you can have a poisonous tomato in one generation.
I still think they're a really good idea, but we need to recognize that our ability to screw up improves with our toolbox.
Aka Geek Hubris.
It's a frigging web comic, not Tolstoy. Who, other than obsessive-compulsive fanboys would bother to check it for updates more than once a week or so?
It just goes to show; too much success can turn just about anyone into a diva who thinks that the world hangs on their every word (even a supposedly down-to-earth science guy).
Kinda reminds me of megatokyo or penny arcade - good web comics in their own right, but suddenly the author(s) get to thinking they're some kind of genius / saint / high-artiste.
They're not poseurs, they're at the forefront of the medium and the success they've achieved is as a result of their talents.
xkcd isn't always the funniest (though it has some real classics), but it's definitely the most innovative. The Time comic is a weird intersection of comic and animation, it's probably not going to become a new style but he did something original AND good, and that's a rare talent.
Having been a grad student is not the same as being a Ph.D and yes, there is a big difference.
No doubt. I'm just trying to figure out the scope of her lying. She had a high profile academic career so her credentials should have been quite widely known. Lying on the grant application is still illegal, but I don't think it would have been feasible for her to claim a PhD on a regular basis.
Berlowitz falsely claimed to have received a doctorate from New York University
I'm assuming she only lied on the grant applications since she was also the Vice President for Institutional Advancement at New York University. Presumably they would have noticed if she falsely claimed to have a doctorate from them.
Why is this a big deal?
If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. I just wish we would be totally open about it. Since we can probably assume all the runners are at least trying to do something like that, we can just ignore it.
This is like trying to find a winner for the tour de france that was not doping in some form, good luck. That sport is more properly referred to as cheating on two wheels.
Right now doping really only happens at the elite level, and the elite level athletes have elite doctors that stop them from hurting themselves.
But if you allow it at the elite level then the far larger number of athletes in junior and the sub-elite level are also going to dope. And they don't have the elite doctors to supervise so a lot of them are going to seriously harm themselves.
The current approach seems to be to allow the doping but to put up enough road blocks so the effect is kept relatively minimal.
I certainly wouldn't be shocked if Bolt was doping but he's the one champion from the traditionally dirty sports where I actually think he could be clean.
Basically Bolt is a freak, he has a physique that is obviously different from other elite sprinters. If his a-typical physiology is inferior I don't see how he could dope enough to achieve the dominance he has. And if his physiology is superior then we don't understand the scale of the physiological advantage well enough to know that he'd need drugs.
It's like when the Kenyans showed up on the distance running scene. If there were drugs the Europeans were taking they didn't make a difference, the Kenyans had an entirely different body type which gave them an advantage that drugs couldn't match.
Populations can compel sacrifice through social means but I don't think there's really a genetic mechanism, from what I understand group selection just isn't that good.
There's a powerful motivation for empathy which is cooperation and alliances. I don't want to ally with a psychopath since they're very likely to betray me, the only way I'll trust them is if they deceive me into thinking they're not a psychopath. This is a high risk strategy, maybe it's a little easier to pull off in modern society where there's a lot more minor relationships, but certainly in tribal society it's hard to be a psychopath and remain trusted.
Empathy makes it easy to play a long game and build trusted relationships because you're rewarded for playing a long game instead of a short one.
From TFA:
We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world
Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one
If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!
Also from TFA
The five fatal attacks in WA waters in just under 12 months, which earned the state the unwelcome tag of shark attack capital of the world, prompted the research into the suits more than two years ago.
You seem to be working from different figures.
That being said I'd agree that most people overestimate the risk from shark, but they also overestimate the risk of being mauled by a bear. But if I go to an area with a lot of aggressive bears that risk can get a lot higher so it's a really good idea to bring some bear spray, similarly if I'm spending a lot of time surfing in shark infested waters I might not want to look like a seal.
dirt cheap hardware made in China and an excellent free OS (Android) or a nearly free OS (Apple.)
Not to troll, but when you look at the cost difference between an iPad and an Andriod Tablet with similar or better hardware, the Apple OS is not "nearly free". Unless Apple is buying *REALLY* expensive packaging...
iOS uses the Darwin kernel which uses an Open Source license.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
This is obviously wrong. It does have political and cultural value. After all, the video spawned this entire debate.
I'm not sure having a debate about whether it should be banned or has any worth at all is a valid example of spawning political debate :)
What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.
See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.
It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.
I personally would feel better if rotton.com and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
It basically comes down to this. If you believe in absolutely unfettered free speech than this video is allowed.
If you believe in any decency restrictions at all, then this video is probably out.
I don't agree with these charges or decency restrictions on speech, though I'd order it pulled on the grounds it shows an actual person's body being dismembered, but I think this video is so far beyond anything else that you can ban it and leave the rest of the disturbing stuff untouched.
I don't think the publication ban is relevant here. In practice publication bans only affect the media and don't bother blogs that much, plus the video detailed Magnotta even being identified as the killer.
The site was a really twisted gore website that Magnotta frequented (I recall hearing that he'd freaked out even website members and they'd contacted the police on previous occasions). After Magnotta killed Lin he sent the video to the website of him doing really bad things to the body (I don't think Lin was killed on camera). The operator posted the video and then he (or other site members) contacted the police about the video.
Thankfully the vast majority those gang-owned guns are already illegal. So I'm sure they'll all disappear soon, because as we all know, criminals always obey gun laws.
They aren't running gun factories, those guns all started out legal before they made it to the gangs.
Ban the purchase of handguns. It's that simple. The supply dries up and all the gangs are going to run out sooner rather than later.
However, I have to disagree with the last sentence... we live in a violent society... whatever the underlying reasons, it's a true statement... yes, most of us frankly never encounter violence, thankfully, but it's there and all around us... given no other societal changes, would removing guns make confrontations less likely? I don't see how, in fact, it seems to me they'd be MORE likely... if I'm sure that guy I beat to the parking space at the grocery store doesn't have a gun then it seems I'd be MORE likely to do it and risk pissing him off because the worst that happens is a fist fight.
The US as a whole is a violent society, but for the majority it's a fairly peaceful society. I don't know what happens to middle class suburbanites when you remove guns, a tiny uptick in violence, or a tiny drop, but I don't think it's significant either way. I live in Canada and it's generally very peaceful and no one carries concealed or otherwise.
It's the poor who live in a violent society, and the times when a gun really does help you in self-defense it's usually defending from a poor person. If we get rid of the guns among the poorer parts of society we get rid of a lot of the violence. Toronto is our only city with a serious inner city gang problem, and it's only in the last few years when guns showed up that the bodies started piling up.
I suspect the majority of lawful responsible gun-owners like yourself are on average either neutral or beneficial to public safety as a whole.
The problem is I don't know how to design a system that gives you a gun without giving a gun to criminals as well.