Who wants to bet this justification only popped up after they looked over the comments? (and were forced to disregard all the anti-net neutrality bot opinions)
First of all, this article has a very biased viewpoint.
Foreign students have begun to shun the United States
That is stating that foreign students are making the choice to not attend schools in the United States. The data says no such thing. It is likely the same number of students desire to be educated in the United States as before, but there there are other factors that stand in their way (like having to enter the country through the legal processes).
The laws may be playing a factor, but I personally know people who due to the election of Trump decided not to move to the US.
I personally, was already reluctant to move to the US, but it would be a hell of a lot harder to convince me to move there now.
Further, the article states "worth noting" (IE if they didn't state it they would be too blatantly guilty of expressing their bias without proper facts) that the big schools are affected "much less" than smaller schools that do not have Ph.D. programs. So considering the "best and brightest" are usually those seeking Ph. D. programs at the bigger schools, well, this isn't affecting the "best and brightest" at all.
The effect was much more pronounced in the Midwest and Texas, she said, especially at schools without Ph.D. programs, and at community colleges.
Ahh, now we get to the truth of it. This is about illegal immigrants from Mexico, which were attending smaller schools like community colleges. Isn't this to be expected? If it is harder to illegally enter the United States, and immigrants actually have to follow the policies that have been in place for decades, then less immigrants will be coming in, and thus we would see a drop in foreign enrollment at these kinds of smaller colleges in that specific region of the country.
You think the drop in enrolment is from illegal immigrants?!? That's.... actually contradicted by the data.
If the drop was from fewer illegal immigrants you'd see drops in places with a lot of illegal immigrants, like Texas and California. And places with fewer illegal immigrants, like the Midwest, would be unaffected.
Conversely, if students were avoiding the US because of Trump, they'd avoid places that are strongly associated with Trump, like Texas and the Midwest.
As for the top schools not seeing a drop in international enrolment. They're not going to see a drop because they already have more top international students than they can admit. When the supply drops it doesn't show up in the top-tier schools everybody applies to. It shows up in the 2nd and 3rd tier schools where people apply when they can't get into the top schools.
Why would a group of people based on hate and the desired genocide of blacks and homosexuals also spend their leisure time doing shots and laughing at a karaoke bar with blacks and homosexuals?
There's a bloody youtube video!!!!
What standard of proof can it possibly take to convince you?!?
a) Literally collaborating in secret with neo-Nazis and self-described white nationalists. b) Singing karaoke with white supremacists. Singing while those white supremacists literally made the stereotypical Nazi salute.
Now I don't know his true inner heart, but unless you contest the veracity of the emails it is a literal proven fact that he has collaborated with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
God help me... I'm going to defend white nationalists.
a) Antifa are in no way "black supremacists"
They weren't called that. Only a call for treating all groups similarly. And yes... Antifa is a hate group.
The phrasing of the comment certainly left an implication they were black supremacists, I wanted to make sure to explicitly contradict that.
b) Antifa are not they remotely as bad as white supremacists.
Because...? Do you really want to compare the commonality of violence from Antifa to the far lower level from the white supremacists?
Antifa certainly doesn't shy from low-level violence like punching and vandalism, and it's something I deeply abhor about them. But if you compare all the low-level violence from both sides I'm honestly not sure who is worse.
But the white supremacists have a literal and extensive body count. Here Antifa isn't even close.
c) White supremacists are a far bigger problem than Antifa and black supremacists combined.
Because... ? Interesting that only now do you draw a distinction between the group... earlier you seemed outraged that they would be listed together... and in your mind, thought of as the same thing.
Huh? You think because I said "Antifa and black supremacists combined" I think they're the same thing??
Isn't it odd, that those most worried about 'white supremacists' are often the most angry when 'radical Islam' is spoken of? We don't dare use the "i" word, for fear of alienating peaceful Muslims who are unfairly being grouped in through the use of the word word.
The problem with talking about "radical Islam" is it's usually done in the context of talking about terrorism, and it implies that terrorism is caused by being really Muslim.
But there you can be a really, really devout Muslim and be totally opposed to violence. And you can be a really crappy non-devout Muslim and be a terrorist. It's not a great correlation.
So this ends up causing a bunch of really peaceful non-terrorist Muslims to be unfairly suspected of terrorism and exposes them to all sorts of harassment.
It also means some Muslims are going to hear you keep equating Muslim with terrorist and they're going to make the same association and be more likely to embrace terrorism. I suspect this has played a role in some of the "lone wolf" attacks in the west, people who didn't have a strong Islamic identity embraced terrorism because the media told them that's what true Muslim's did.
Should we not now worry of alienating non-supremacist white people in with the supremacist sort by labeling all as 'white'?
No because it's a complete non-sequitur. The problem with "radical Islam" is it easily applied to all Muslims because it basically means someone who is really Muslim.
"White supremacist" doesn't generalize about white people, it specifically identifies the group of people who think that whites should be supreme.
Considering the recent moves in the media, be it twitter, facebook, news articles, reddit posts, moderation across the web, youtube, shaming campaigns etc, it's extremely difficult to actually identify, clear, distinct, genuine racists.
Are there borderline cases? Sure.
But then there's also the white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia.
And there's Milo Yannopolis collaborating with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
There's a lot of people who are clearly racist, or friendly with racists, entrenched in what has become the mainstream right. And it's worrying.
The term has been wildly thrown around the web in the past 3 years (along with misogynist and other such things) to the point it's verging on meaningless.
With misogyny we're dealing with the fact that we historically have a really misogynist culture.
Just look at this Roy Moore thing, men dating much younger women isn't that uncommon, and among certain christian communities adult men dating and marrying teenage girls isn't uncommon.
The reason to date teenagers isn't fertility or even looks, it's compliance, they're looking for a relationship with a huge power imbalance. That's something we previously accepted but now recognize as misogyny.
Same thing with male managers hitting on female employees, that used to be an accepted thing but we now recognize the abuse of power.
I have no idea what comments you made that drew such accusations, you may be guilty of writing some sexist or racist stuff, or you may have been the target of some people who had no idea what they were talking about.
If that's the plan, then the Antifa needs the same treatment. No white supremacists with verified accounts, and also no black supremacists with verified accounts.
Not a fan of Antifa, but I'm calling you on the false equivalency.
a) Antifa are in no way "black supremacists" b) Antifa are not they remotely as bad as white supremacists. c) White supremacists are a far bigger problem than Antifa and black supremacists combined.
2) This works because the process required to get a government ID is fairly complicated
This is pure racist bullshit. You are basically saying that it is so complicated only WHITE people can figure it out. That it is so complicated that Minorities can't figure it out. Queue up "Black people don't know where DMV is" level complicated.
I'd excuse you as being innocently mistaken... except I cited an entire article that explained the sense in which is was complicated and it certainly wasn't "Black people don't know where DMV is". Among other things they tend not to have the secondary documentation that makes getting an ID easy. It's also talking about the specific subset of people who have trouble getting IDs to vote.
And of course you have the fact that he's almost certainly cherry picking a very non-representative sample of interviewees.
Again, that is YOUR assumption. However based on your own response, you committed the very same infractions, you just dressed it up in progressive code language.
Here is the Progressive Trick, they use code language to call blacks and minorities "stupid" by labeling them all the same based on some hypothetical disenfranchised anecdotal reference.
This is boring, I've been clear in how the issue is about the specific subset of minorities who can't get IDs, not minorities in general. I've got better things to do they trying to convince you to stop obfuscating my point in a 2 person argument.
I suppose it's all about cost for the proprietary OSes
Not for the top-500, I'm sure Linux is cheaper that the Unixes, but you don't get a machine on the top-500 by cost-cutting.
but what of the BSDs? They're free, and the license would let custom work on a super computer's OS be closed and even sold. Is it networking speeds or the like? Parallelism? I would really like to know, didn't come here for "'cause Linux Rulz!" ass-hattery
I think it's simpler than that, what does BSD have that Linux doesn't?
Linux gives you an open source Unix with a massive community and a ton of corporate backing.
BSD gives you an open source Unix with a small community and a little bit of corporate backing.
I'm sure there's some specific application where BSD might have an advantage, but there's going to be a lot of applications where Linux has big advantage just because there's so many technical resources thrown behind it and so many skilled developers and admins available.
It's not so much a criticism of BSD, it could have gone differently (though it probably would have needed a copyleft license to attract the community) but the open source community has largely unified around Linux.
So, the Top 500 list of computers was dominated by many Variants of Unix, with a little sprinkle of other weird stuff (among those, VMS). Which is not a monoculture
Then, as the other weird stuff waned, Windows took it's place (for a short while). Not directly as a replacement of course, but rather as a percentage of Top500 systems.
On the other side of the fence, Linux began to take increasign market share of the Top500 because of low cost, shallow learning curve from *nix, and posibility to modify source code, in an accelerated path to become a monoculture (at least where the Top500 is concerned).
And now, finally, we are on a monoculture in the Top500, with Linux all the way in the Top500... No *BSD, no AIX, HP-UX, or Solaris. Just Linux all the way.
Better not catch anyone complaining about Chrome Monoculture, Windows Monoculture, or Android monoculture! M'kay?;-)
I think the reason it's become a Linux "monoculture" is that it isn't really a monoculture.
Top-500 should be an area that's amendable to variety. Any one project is big enough that some serious customization is going to occur, so traditionallyany one OS could focus on a specific feature set and nab themselves a bit of the market. That's why the big Unixes co-existed for so long, if your problem was a round hole you'd grab the Unix that looked the most like a round peg, and if you had a square hold you'd grab one that looked like a square peg.
But Linux is modifiable, so if you need a round peg you can make it a round peg. If you really need a specific feature or optimization you can write a kernel patch. That doesn't matter for the consumer market but it matters for the top-500 list.
I wonder what the future of the BSDs is, they have cool communities but I'm not really sure where their niche is.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Seriously, some of the most racist people I know are well intentioned liberal retards who think they are helping black people. Because obviously, black people don't know about cell phones or even where the DMV is.
I suppose you can hear that if you really want to... but there's some major slight of hand going on in that video.
Here's the actual facts: 1) Voter IDs laws are designed to disenfranchise black people because black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat. 2) This works because the process required to get a government ID is fairly complicated, and the things that make it complicated tend to correlate with being black, hispanic, poor, or elderly. 3 of those 4 groups that lean Democratic. 3) States looking to disenfranchise minorities tend to treat their black population worse in general. If they're trying to disenfranchise them with voter ID laws they'll try extra hard to avoid giving them IDs.
Now here's the first trick the Fox News reporter pulls:
1) He seeks out a bunch of white undergrads who understand that voter ID laws seek to disenfranchise minorities but they don't fully understand the mechanisms that make it difficult for minorities to obtain IDs for voting. 2) Next he primes them with answers, for instance one problem with getting ID over the Internet is you may not have the proper documentation. Other than the first guy who talks about access the reporter seems to prime them by talking about access, so predictably they run with the idea that some of the disenfranchised black people have trouble accessing the internet.
Now, here comes the second trick:
1) The white undergrads were talking about black people in states targeted by voter ID laws. New York is not one of those states. So many of the fundamental issues like access to ID aren't applicable. Basically he's "debunking" the assertions by talking to a completely different group of people. 2) Now this one is very subtle but very disingenuous. The white interviewees are talking about the specific subset of black people who are being targeted by the voter ID laws, ie people having trouble obtaining ID. Now the reporter repeats those statements back to individual black people as though they were meant to describe them, the reporter is the one who generalizes the statements and makes them racist.
And of course you have the fact that he's almost certainly cherry picking a very non-representative sample of interviewees. You should be very skeptical of accepting a heavily edited video as evidence from someone known for deceptively and unethically editing their videos.
Witnesses he is trying to include in the settlement money payout. That doesn't make for an unbiased statement.
seeking permission from a judge to sue on behalf of the group
All members of the group stand to gain financially.
So you're alleging a conspiracy now? All the black folks are going to say one thing and all the white folks another?
I suppose it's possible... though really unlikely.
There are three plausible scenarios here: 1) The complainant is completely accurate and Tesla has an outspoken group of racist employees in its factory that it has failed to deal with. 2) The complainant is partially accurate, but the problem isn't as widespread as they imply. 3) The complainant is completely making it up (and will quickly be found out because it's a dumb complaint to fabricate).
I think it's very likely #1 or #2 with a small chance for #3 because a single individual can sometimes make a really dumb decision.
So was an Air Force Academy recently until it was found out that the very same person who was pitching a fit about " racism " was also the same person who wrote the slur on the wall to begin with.
Possibly, but if it were a fake complaint your evidence would be something that's hard to corroborate like a private conversation or a racist slur written somewhere.
But this guy alleges employees and supervisors regularly used the "N word" around him and other black colleagues. In other words he's stating there's a bunch of witnesses to multiple incidents, witnesses that can easily back up or refute his story.
If you were going to invent a claim out of mid air you wouldn't assert a bunch of non-existent witnesses.
You are right, she is not giving exact numbers, which means that no-one has even counted how many applications there are. Leaders of that organization are obviously to blame. If I were given a task to migrate everything to Linux, first thing would be to get a list of all applications that are needed, how many users each application has and is there an existing alternative that can be used on Linux and if not, how much is estimated that it would cost to write or order such application (preferably a web application so there won't be such problems in the future).
Alternately, they did exactly that, but she didn't give the exact number in the interview because "397 of the 804 applications" a) sounds weirdly pedantic and unrelatable, which is a bad look for a politician, b) she might be off if she forgets an exact number and now she's created a needless controversy where by saying something inaccurate, and c) 397/804 vs 423/798 is irrelevant and her audience is liable to forget figures that exact, "half of 800" on the other hand is really easy to remember.
mail servers, for instance, eventually wound up migrating to Microsoft Exchange
WTH? E-mail is one of the easiest systems to NOT use any Windows-specific software with --- in fact, the more mature implementations of SMTP and IMAP servers run on Linux and much more robustly, than those pieces of shit called 'Exchange' and 'Outlook'.
I'd agree here, even with MS endpoints I can't understand how you couldn't have Linux mail servers.
"Users were unhappy and software essential for the public sector is mostly only available for Windows," she said. She estimated about half of the 800 or so total programs needed don't run on Linux
Seriously.... 800 "Needed" Windows programs? WTF. I call BS. How about supplying a list. Part of migrating is CHANGING which business apps you will use, to focus more on Web-based solutions, and replace Windows client apps with substitutes that provide the necessary capabilities.
By the way, Linux or OS X should be EASY to adopt on 100% of endpoints, even with specialized software, even if some legacy apps are still required; thanks to Terminal Services or Citrix-based solutions, specialized published apps can execute from a more limited number of machines.
This part makes sense to me. A municipal government isn't just secretaries and managers writing up documents and exchanging emails. There's transport, project planning, engineering, etc. Each of those departments is going to have its own specialized software, and the industry standard software is going to predominantly be windows.
You might be able to find something on Linux with sufficient functionality, you might be able to retrain all your new and current hires to use that software, you might be able to find workarounds whenever you deal with external groups on the standard software. But you're going to end up with a lot of groups who are severely impacted if they're not allowed to use their window's app.
Heck, in my current job I'm the lone developer using Linux and it's a challenge, Network paths are a little different, RDP doesn't work that well, the Microsoft Project files don't open quite right, some tool everyone is using isn't available for my systems, my workflow is bit different, etc, etc.
Now, I think my situation is an asset to my organization since it gives me an original perspective on a lot of problems, but I've also been using Linux for 16 years so am more capable than most in managing the difficulties. I think there's lots of groups within Munich who could probably go full Linux, and maybe you could manage the cost of supporting two streams. But trying to do full Linux does not sound remotely feasible.
This. A softmax function isn't going to take over the world, no matter how far they shrink a GPU die or whatever else. Besides, Hawking knows nothing about AI. He's a physicist, and he's smart, sure, but he's not a developer, he doesn't have any credibility in this area and giving him street time to shill Nick Bostrom's bullshit book is just sad.
Time-travel back to 1920 and ask people whether physics can develop a super-bomb.
The physicists are going to give you the same answer as other informed smart people, which is a wild-ass guess.
Both groups will know that radioactivity is something interesting, and that relativity can give you some crazy numbers. But the physicists won't have any special insight about whether that can be used to create a super-bomb, or how big, or on what timescale, because the specific physics to create that bomb haven't been invented.
We're in the same boat with AI. You want to know what AI can do today, or a decent prediction of the state of AI in 5 years? Ask an AI researcher, it's their field of expertise and they'll give you a really good answer.
You want to know what a strong general AI would do? Ask whomever the hell you want, no one has a clue because a strong general AI doesn't exist.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
It isn't a conspiracy, the drafting committee members of the UN has said the Paris Agreement (note no "climate" in the title) is a wealth redistribution medium.
I don't know if you're the AC I originally responded to, but you're shifting goalposts. You implied that other countries signed on because it benefited them and it doesn't benefit the US. But the US is not the only country to give up wealth.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
Firstly, 100 billion. The floor was an expected 100 billion contribution. Secondly, if the US did give away that kind of money, all it would do is embolden ideologues like you to claim that other countries are doing more than the US is and happily ignore that they are doing it with our money.
You're obfuscating. The US never pledged to give 100 billion nor was it expected to. The goal of the fund was 100 billion, the US pledged $3, the EU pledged $4.7, and if you wanted to you could have pledged 0 and stayed signed on.
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
When? Has been for decades.
When the price drops below the level where extraction is viable.
I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
And? Being a victim does not make your claims more valid.
It does if my claim is that the US is not the only one to pay a price from taking action to combat climate change.
I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation
Quantaman of slashdot, the B52 of strawman and ad hominem attacks is claiming to be "Acting like a grownup."
Not lying to yourself about the seriousness of a situation and calling out people on BS is acting like a grownup.
Lying and obfuscating about the topic at hand is not.
my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy.
Less impressive than if you followed your expectations for others and said, "I need to give money to developing nations like India and China so they can diversify their economy."
And after all that you still have not addressed the original points made.
I'm perfectly happy to have my country and province send money to help other nations diversify. Though from a practical standpoint my province's wealth is most effectively spent de-carbonizing our economy just because our economy is so carbon intensive.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I've been ignoring the ACs but this isn't the first comment to say something like this and the ignorant theme is starting to get annoying.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
Well it's not all about you, other countries are making sacrifices too.
You know where I'm from? Alberta. Our economy is based on oil, not just any oil, the oilsands which are really hard (ie expensive) to extract and process.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
I don't know exactly what that's going to do to my province... but it's going to be bad. Mass unemployment and bankruptcies, huge downsizing of the economy, my current employer may not survive, most of my friends and family are going to be adversely affected. I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
But I'm not pretending that AGW isn't happening, and I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation. AGW is a problem for everybody and my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy. And I need to plan my future for the possibility I'll have to move.
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.
Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year.
And where in the Paris Climate deal was the US required to pay into the Green Climate Fund?
In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund.
As it should be, countries who are modernizing and have far lower per-capita emissions are given more slack than countries who have grown rich using up the planet's budget for carbon emissions.
The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.
If you don't want to play catchup then don't slack, besides, if the fall of coal is giving you the reduction for free then what are you whining about?
Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I can exploit the system as much as I want because someone else will pick up the slack."
Comments like that make me hope that in 20 years the US finds itself on the receiving end of punitive sanctions for its inaction in response to global warming.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Because he hasn't been able to do much of consequence yet.
His party came up with a disastrous idea for a healthcare bill, a competent President who understood himself to be accountable for the consequences would have pushed them to a different bill, instead three Senators are the only thing that prevented a disastrous modification to the healthcare system.
He came up with a terrible idea for immigration, he moderated it to get around the courts and it still got blocked forcing him to moderate it further. And he's got some braindead idea to pull out of NAFTA which will hammer the US economy.
Now his party is pushing a tax plan wanted by no one except for their rich donors, again a competent President concerned about their popularity and legacy would go for something different.
His also trying to pick a fight with North Korea.
Frankly Trump isn't as bad as I thought he'd be, he's actually worse. The difference is he's also less competent than I thought, so his badness hasn't actually been able to translate into action.
The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
What swamp is he draining? His cabinet is basically a mixture of fringe GOP and rich people.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now.
I have no idea how racist he personally is, but there's a reason why the KKK and NeoNazis have been among the most dedicated Trumpists from the start. Heck, his campaign manager and chief of staff ran a publication that ran articles in collaboration with NeoNazis.
1) Are we sure it isn't April 1st? I've heard of companies doing dumb things but I can't imagine how this anyone thought this was a good idea, are we sure the whole article isn't some kind of prank?
2) IF they were going to try this simple facial recognition should be enough.
We don't have computers that can think yet. We just don't. We aren't even CLOSE, and it may not be possible at all.
Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither does the media.
Alternately, we might be less than 10 years away. We don't really know how far off we are or what the dangers are because we don't know what a strong general AI will really look like.
Talking about the dangers of string AI now is a bit like talking about super-weapons in 1920. Sure they saw how science + warfare could increase destructiveness, but there's no more reason they should have anticipated Nukes in 20-30 years in 1920 than 1820.
I try to take every deduction, every investment, every loophole I can that is legally available to me.
I would expect no less from any other person or company.
Hell, if the US would drop the corporate rate to something even nearly that low, I'll bet Apple and others would bring much of that money home.
But if all of this is legal and it appears to be....then so what?
Paying taxes is not a moral choice, it is a part of doing business.
If you don't like companies or people using the current rules....make some changes, but until then, quit bitching about it.
If YOU want to pay more tax than you legally have to...there is a nice section on the form where you can voluntarily pay additional over and above what you owe.
You realize the poster wanted to change the rules, exactly as you suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to bet this justification only popped up after they looked over the comments? (and were forced to disregard all the anti-net neutrality bot opinions)
The House GOP members are simply delivering what their constituents want.
And by "constituents" I of course mean their rich donors.
First of all, this article has a very biased viewpoint.
Foreign students have begun to shun the United States
That is stating that foreign students are making the choice to not attend schools in the United States. The data says no such thing. It is likely the same number of students desire to be educated in the United States as before, but there there are other factors that stand in their way (like having to enter the country through the legal processes).
The laws may be playing a factor, but I personally know people who due to the election of Trump decided not to move to the US.
I personally, was already reluctant to move to the US, but it would be a hell of a lot harder to convince me to move there now.
Further, the article states "worth noting" (IE if they didn't state it they would be too blatantly guilty of expressing their bias without proper facts) that the big schools are affected "much less" than smaller schools that do not have Ph.D. programs. So considering the "best and brightest" are usually those seeking Ph. D. programs at the bigger schools, well, this isn't affecting the "best and brightest" at all.
The effect was much more pronounced in the Midwest and Texas, she said, especially at schools without Ph.D. programs, and at community colleges.
Ahh, now we get to the truth of it. This is about illegal immigrants from Mexico, which were attending smaller schools like community colleges. Isn't this to be expected? If it is harder to illegally enter the United States, and immigrants actually have to follow the policies that have been in place for decades, then less immigrants will be coming in, and thus we would see a drop in foreign enrollment at these kinds of smaller colleges in that specific region of the country.
You think the drop in enrolment is from illegal immigrants?!? That's.... actually contradicted by the data.
If the drop was from fewer illegal immigrants you'd see drops in places with a lot of illegal immigrants, like Texas and California. And places with fewer illegal immigrants, like the Midwest, would be unaffected.
Conversely, if students were avoiding the US because of Trump, they'd avoid places that are strongly associated with Trump, like Texas and the Midwest.
As for the top schools not seeing a drop in international enrolment. They're not going to see a drop because they already have more top international students than they can admit. When the supply drops it doesn't show up in the top-tier schools everybody applies to. It shows up in the 2nd and 3rd tier schools where people apply when they can't get into the top schools.
Why would a group of people based on hate and the desired genocide of blacks and homosexuals also spend their leisure time doing shots and laughing at a karaoke bar with blacks and homosexuals?
There's a bloody youtube video!!!!
What standard of proof can it possibly take to convince you?!?
And there's Milo Yannopolis collaborating with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
He is openly gay and married to a black man.
No one should believe a word you say after you claim white supremacists and self-proclaimed Nazis are buddies with a homosexual "race-traitor".
Excepted there is documented proof of him:
a) Literally collaborating in secret with neo-Nazis and self-described white nationalists.
b) Singing karaoke with white supremacists. Singing while those white supremacists literally made the stereotypical Nazi salute.
Now I don't know his true inner heart, but unless you contest the veracity of the emails it is a literal proven fact that he has collaborated with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
God help me... I'm going to defend white nationalists.
They weren't called that. Only a call for treating all groups similarly. And yes... Antifa is a hate group.
The phrasing of the comment certainly left an implication they were black supremacists, I wanted to make sure to explicitly contradict that.
Because...? Do you really want to compare the commonality of violence from Antifa to the far lower level from the white supremacists?
Antifa certainly doesn't shy from low-level violence like punching and vandalism, and it's something I deeply abhor about them. But if you compare all the low-level violence from both sides I'm honestly not sure who is worse.
But the white supremacists have a literal and extensive body count. Here Antifa isn't even close.
Because... ? Interesting that only now do you draw a distinction between the group... earlier you seemed outraged that they would be listed together... and in your mind, thought of as the same thing.
Huh? You think because I said "Antifa and black supremacists combined" I think they're the same thing??
Isn't it odd, that those most worried about 'white supremacists' are often the most angry when 'radical Islam' is spoken of? We don't dare use the "i" word, for fear of alienating peaceful Muslims who are unfairly being grouped in through the use of the word word.
The problem with talking about "radical Islam" is it's usually done in the context of talking about terrorism, and it implies that terrorism is caused by being really Muslim.
But there you can be a really, really devout Muslim and be totally opposed to violence. And you can be a really crappy non-devout Muslim and be a terrorist. It's not a great correlation.
So this ends up causing a bunch of really peaceful non-terrorist Muslims to be unfairly suspected of terrorism and exposes them to all sorts of harassment.
It also means some Muslims are going to hear you keep equating Muslim with terrorist and they're going to make the same association and be more likely to embrace terrorism. I suspect this has played a role in some of the "lone wolf" attacks in the west, people who didn't have a strong Islamic identity embraced terrorism because the media told them that's what true Muslim's did.
Should we not now worry of alienating non-supremacist white people in with the supremacist sort by labeling all as 'white'?
No because it's a complete non-sequitur. The problem with "radical Islam" is it easily applied to all Muslims because it basically means someone who is really Muslim.
"White supremacist" doesn't generalize about white people, it specifically identifies the group of people who think that whites should be supreme.
Considering the recent moves in the media, be it twitter, facebook, news articles, reddit posts, moderation across the web, youtube, shaming campaigns etc, it's extremely difficult to actually identify, clear, distinct, genuine racists.
Are there borderline cases? Sure.
But then there's also the white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia.
And there's Milo Yannopolis collaborating with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
There's a lot of people who are clearly racist, or friendly with racists, entrenched in what has become the mainstream right. And it's worrying.
The term has been wildly thrown around the web in the past 3 years (along with misogynist and other such things) to the point it's verging on meaningless.
With misogyny we're dealing with the fact that we historically have a really misogynist culture.
Just look at this Roy Moore thing, men dating much younger women isn't that uncommon, and among certain christian communities adult men dating and marrying teenage girls isn't uncommon.
The reason to date teenagers isn't fertility or even looks, it's compliance, they're looking for a relationship with a huge power imbalance. That's something we previously accepted but now recognize as misogyny.
Same thing with male managers hitting on female employees, that used to be an accepted thing but we now recognize the abuse of power.
I have no idea what comments you made that drew such accusations, you may be guilty of writing some sexist or racist stuff, or you may have been the target of some people who had no idea what they were talking about.
If that's the plan, then the Antifa needs the same treatment. No white supremacists with verified accounts, and also no black supremacists with verified accounts.
Not a fan of Antifa, but I'm calling you on the false equivalency.
a) Antifa are in no way "black supremacists"
b) Antifa are not they remotely as bad as white supremacists.
c) White supremacists are a far bigger problem than Antifa and black supremacists combined.
2) This works because the process required to get a government ID is fairly complicated
This is pure racist bullshit. You are basically saying that it is so complicated only WHITE people can figure it out. That it is so complicated that Minorities can't figure it out. Queue up "Black people don't know where DMV is" level complicated.
I'd excuse you as being innocently mistaken... except I cited an entire article that explained the sense in which is was complicated and it certainly wasn't "Black people don't know where DMV is". Among other things they tend not to have the secondary documentation that makes getting an ID easy. It's also talking about the specific subset of people who have trouble getting IDs to vote.
And of course you have the fact that he's almost certainly cherry picking a very non-representative sample of interviewees.
Again, that is YOUR assumption. However based on your own response, you committed the very same infractions, you just dressed it up in progressive code language.
Here is the Progressive Trick, they use code language to call blacks and minorities "stupid" by labeling them all the same based on some hypothetical disenfranchised anecdotal reference.
This is boring, I've been clear in how the issue is about the specific subset of minorities who can't get IDs, not minorities in general. I've got better things to do they trying to convince you to stop obfuscating my point in a 2 person argument.
I suppose it's all about cost for the proprietary OSes
Not for the top-500, I'm sure Linux is cheaper that the Unixes, but you don't get a machine on the top-500 by cost-cutting.
but what of the BSDs? They're free, and the license would let custom work on a super computer's OS be closed and even sold. Is it networking speeds or the like? Parallelism? I would really like to know, didn't come here for "'cause Linux Rulz!" ass-hattery
I think it's simpler than that, what does BSD have that Linux doesn't?
Linux gives you an open source Unix with a massive community and a ton of corporate backing.
BSD gives you an open source Unix with a small community and a little bit of corporate backing.
I'm sure there's some specific application where BSD might have an advantage, but there's going to be a lot of applications where Linux has big advantage just because there's so many technical resources thrown behind it and so many skilled developers and admins available.
It's not so much a criticism of BSD, it could have gone differently (though it probably would have needed a copyleft license to attract the community) but the open source community has largely unified around Linux.
So, the Top 500 list of computers was dominated by many Variants of Unix, with a little sprinkle of other weird stuff (among those, VMS). Which is not a monoculture
Then, as the other weird stuff waned, Windows took it's place (for a short while). Not directly as a replacement of course, but rather as a percentage of Top500 systems.
On the other side of the fence, Linux began to take increasign market share of the Top500 because of low cost, shallow learning curve from *nix, and posibility to modify source code, in an accelerated path to become a monoculture (at least where the Top500 is concerned).
And now, finally, we are on a monoculture in the Top500, with Linux all the way in the Top500... No *BSD, no AIX, HP-UX, or Solaris. Just Linux all the way.
Better not catch anyone complaining about Chrome Monoculture, Windows Monoculture, or Android monoculture! M'kay? ;-)
I think the reason it's become a Linux "monoculture" is that it isn't really a monoculture.
Top-500 should be an area that's amendable to variety. Any one project is big enough that some serious customization is going to occur, so traditionallyany one OS could focus on a specific feature set and nab themselves a bit of the market. That's why the big Unixes co-existed for so long, if your problem was a round hole you'd grab the Unix that looked the most like a round peg, and if you had a square hold you'd grab one that looked like a square peg.
But Linux is modifiable, so if you need a round peg you can make it a round peg. If you really need a specific feature or optimization you can write a kernel patch. That doesn't matter for the consumer market but it matters for the top-500 list.
I wonder what the future of the BSDs is, they have cool communities but I'm not really sure where their niche is.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Seriously, some of the most racist people I know are well intentioned liberal retards who think they are helping black people. Because obviously, black people don't know about cell phones or even where the DMV is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I suppose you can hear that if you really want to... but there's some major slight of hand going on in that video.
Here's the actual facts:
1) Voter IDs laws are designed to disenfranchise black people because black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
2) This works because the process required to get a government ID is fairly complicated, and the things that make it complicated tend to correlate with being black, hispanic, poor, or elderly. 3 of those 4 groups that lean Democratic.
3) States looking to disenfranchise minorities tend to treat their black population worse in general. If they're trying to disenfranchise them with voter ID laws they'll try extra hard to avoid giving them IDs.
Now here's the first trick the Fox News reporter pulls:
1) He seeks out a bunch of white undergrads who understand that voter ID laws seek to disenfranchise minorities but they don't fully understand the mechanisms that make it difficult for minorities to obtain IDs for voting.
2) Next he primes them with answers, for instance one problem with getting ID over the Internet is you may not have the proper documentation. Other than the first guy who talks about access the reporter seems to prime them by talking about access, so predictably they run with the idea that some of the disenfranchised black people have trouble accessing the internet.
Now, here comes the second trick:
1) The white undergrads were talking about black people in states targeted by voter ID laws. New York is not one of those states. So many of the fundamental issues like access to ID aren't applicable. Basically he's "debunking" the assertions by talking to a completely different group of people.
2) Now this one is very subtle but very disingenuous. The white interviewees are talking about the specific subset of black people who are being targeted by the voter ID laws, ie people having trouble obtaining ID. Now the reporter repeats those statements back to individual black people as though they were meant to describe them, the reporter is the one who generalizes the statements and makes them racist.
And of course you have the fact that he's almost certainly cherry picking a very non-representative sample of interviewees. You should be very skeptical of accepting a heavily edited video as evidence from someone known for deceptively and unethically editing their videos.
Witnesses he is trying to include in the settlement money payout. That doesn't make for an unbiased statement.
seeking permission from a judge to sue on behalf of the group
All members of the group stand to gain financially.
So you're alleging a conspiracy now? All the black folks are going to say one thing and all the white folks another?
I suppose it's possible... though really unlikely.
There are three plausible scenarios here:
1) The complainant is completely accurate and Tesla has an outspoken group of racist employees in its factory that it has failed to deal with.
2) The complainant is partially accurate, but the problem isn't as widespread as they imply.
3) The complainant is completely making it up (and will quickly be found out because it's a dumb complaint to fabricate).
I think it's very likely #1 or #2 with a small chance for #3 because a single individual can sometimes make a really dumb decision.
Claiming a conspiracy just doesn't make sense.
So was an Air Force Academy recently until it was found out that the very same person who was pitching a fit about " racism " was also the same person who wrote the slur on the wall to begin with.
Possibly, but if it were a fake complaint your evidence would be something that's hard to corroborate like a private conversation or a racist slur written somewhere.
But this guy alleges employees and supervisors regularly used the "N word" around him and other black colleagues. In other words he's stating there's a bunch of witnesses to multiple incidents, witnesses that can easily back up or refute his story.
If you were going to invent a claim out of mid air you wouldn't assert a bunch of non-existent witnesses.
"She estimated about half of the 800 or so"
You are right, she is not giving exact numbers, which means that no-one has even counted how many applications there are. Leaders of that organization are obviously to blame. If I were given a task to migrate everything to Linux, first thing would be to get a list of all applications that are needed, how many users each application has and is there an existing alternative that can be used on Linux and if not, how much is estimated that it would cost to write or order such application (preferably a web application so there won't be such problems in the future).
Alternately, they did exactly that, but she didn't give the exact number in the interview because "397 of the 804 applications" a) sounds weirdly pedantic and unrelatable, which is a bad look for a politician, b) she might be off if she forgets an exact number and now she's created a needless controversy where by saying something inaccurate, and c) 397/804 vs 423/798 is irrelevant and her audience is liable to forget figures that exact, "half of 800" on the other hand is really easy to remember.
mail servers, for instance, eventually wound up migrating to Microsoft Exchange
WTH? E-mail is one of the easiest systems to NOT use any Windows-specific software with --- in fact, the more mature implementations of SMTP and IMAP servers run on Linux and much more robustly, than those pieces of shit called 'Exchange' and 'Outlook'.
I'd agree here, even with MS endpoints I can't understand how you couldn't have Linux mail servers.
"Users were unhappy and software essential for the public sector is mostly only available for Windows," she said. She estimated about half of the 800 or so total programs needed don't run on Linux
Seriously.... 800 "Needed" Windows programs? WTF. I call BS. How about supplying a list.
Part of migrating is CHANGING which business apps you will use, to focus more on Web-based solutions, and replace Windows client apps with substitutes that provide the necessary capabilities.
By the way, Linux or OS X should be EASY to adopt on 100% of endpoints, even with specialized software, even if some legacy apps are still required; thanks to Terminal Services or Citrix-based solutions, specialized published apps can execute from a more limited number of machines.
This part makes sense to me. A municipal government isn't just secretaries and managers writing up documents and exchanging emails. There's transport, project planning, engineering, etc. Each of those departments is going to have its own specialized software, and the industry standard software is going to predominantly be windows.
You might be able to find something on Linux with sufficient functionality, you might be able to retrain all your new and current hires to use that software, you might be able to find workarounds whenever you deal with external groups on the standard software. But you're going to end up with a lot of groups who are severely impacted if they're not allowed to use their window's app.
Heck, in my current job I'm the lone developer using Linux and it's a challenge, Network paths are a little different, RDP doesn't work that well, the Microsoft Project files don't open quite right, some tool everyone is using isn't available for my systems, my workflow is bit different, etc, etc.
Now, I think my situation is an asset to my organization since it gives me an original perspective on a lot of problems, but I've also been using Linux for 16 years so am more capable than most in managing the difficulties. I think there's lots of groups within Munich who could probably go full Linux, and maybe you could manage the cost of supporting two streams. But trying to do full Linux does not sound remotely feasible.
This. A softmax function isn't going to take over the world, no matter how far they shrink a GPU die or whatever else. Besides, Hawking knows nothing about AI. He's a physicist, and he's smart, sure, but he's not a developer, he doesn't have any credibility in this area and giving him street time to shill Nick Bostrom's bullshit book is just sad.
Time-travel back to 1920 and ask people whether physics can develop a super-bomb.
The physicists are going to give you the same answer as other informed smart people, which is a wild-ass guess.
Both groups will know that radioactivity is something interesting, and that relativity can give you some crazy numbers. But the physicists won't have any special insight about whether that can be used to create a super-bomb, or how big, or on what timescale, because the specific physics to create that bomb haven't been invented.
We're in the same boat with AI. You want to know what AI can do today, or a decent prediction of the state of AI in 5 years? Ask an AI researcher, it's their field of expertise and they'll give you a really good answer.
You want to know what a strong general AI would do? Ask whomever the hell you want, no one has a clue because a strong general AI doesn't exist.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
It isn't a conspiracy, the drafting committee members of the UN has said the Paris Agreement (note no "climate" in the title) is a wealth redistribution medium.
I don't know if you're the AC I originally responded to, but you're shifting goalposts. You implied that other countries signed on because it benefited them and it doesn't benefit the US. But the US is not the only country to give up wealth.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
Firstly, 100 billion. The floor was an expected 100 billion contribution. Secondly, if the US did give away that kind of money, all it would do is embolden ideologues like you to claim that other countries are doing more than the US is and happily ignore that they are doing it with our money.
You're obfuscating. The US never pledged to give 100 billion nor was it expected to. The goal of the fund was 100 billion, the US pledged $3, the EU pledged $4.7, and if you wanted to you could have pledged 0 and stayed signed on.
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
When? Has been for decades.
When the price drops below the level where extraction is viable.
I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
And? Being a victim does not make your claims more valid.
It does if my claim is that the US is not the only one to pay a price from taking action to combat climate change.
I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation
Quantaman of slashdot, the B52 of strawman and ad hominem attacks is claiming to be "Acting like a grownup."
Not lying to yourself about the seriousness of a situation and calling out people on BS is acting like a grownup.
Lying and obfuscating about the topic at hand is not.
my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy.
Less impressive than if you followed your expectations for others and said, "I need to give money to developing nations like India and China so they can diversify their economy."
And after all that you still have not addressed the original points made.
I'm perfectly happy to have my country and province send money to help other nations diversify. Though from a practical standpoint my province's wealth is most effectively spent de-carbonizing our economy just because our economy is so carbon intensive.
Fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I've been ignoring the ACs but this isn't the first comment to say something like this and the ignorant theme is starting to get annoying.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
Well it's not all about you, other countries are making sacrifices too.
You know where I'm from? Alberta. Our economy is based on oil, not just any oil, the oilsands which are really hard (ie expensive) to extract and process.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
I don't know exactly what that's going to do to my province... but it's going to be bad. Mass unemployment and bankruptcies, huge downsizing of the economy, my current employer may not survive, most of my friends and family are going to be adversely affected. I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
But I'm not pretending that AGW isn't happening, and I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation. AGW is a problem for everybody and my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy. And I need to plan my future for the possibility I'll have to move.
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.
Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year.
And where in the Paris Climate deal was the US required to pay into the Green Climate Fund?
In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund.
As it should be, countries who are modernizing and have far lower per-capita emissions are given more slack than countries who have grown rich using up the planet's budget for carbon emissions.
The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.
If you don't want to play catchup then don't slack, besides, if the fall of coal is giving you the reduction for free then what are you whining about?
Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I can exploit the system as much as I want because someone else will pick up the slack."
Comments like that make me hope that in 20 years the US finds itself on the receiving end of punitive sanctions for its inaction in response to global warming.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Because he hasn't been able to do much of consequence yet.
His party came up with a disastrous idea for a healthcare bill, a competent President who understood himself to be accountable for the consequences would have pushed them to a different bill, instead three Senators are the only thing that prevented a disastrous modification to the healthcare system.
He came up with a terrible idea for immigration, he moderated it to get around the courts and it still got blocked forcing him to moderate it further. And he's got some braindead idea to pull out of NAFTA which will hammer the US economy.
Now his party is pushing a tax plan wanted by no one except for their rich donors, again a competent President concerned about their popularity and legacy would go for something different.
His also trying to pick a fight with North Korea.
Frankly Trump isn't as bad as I thought he'd be, he's actually worse. The difference is he's also less competent than I thought, so his badness hasn't actually been able to translate into action.
The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
What swamp is he draining? His cabinet is basically a mixture of fringe GOP and rich people.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now.
I have no idea how racist he personally is, but there's a reason why the KKK and NeoNazis have been among the most dedicated Trumpists from the start. Heck, his campaign manager and chief of staff ran a publication that ran articles in collaboration with NeoNazis.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.
It's the exact same tactic denialists use, to obscure the obvious by getting lost in the details.
You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.
1) Are we sure it isn't April 1st? I've heard of companies doing dumb things but I can't imagine how this anyone thought this was a good idea, are we sure the whole article isn't some kind of prank?
2) IF they were going to try this simple facial recognition should be enough.
Everything that is labeled "AI"...isn't.
We don't have computers that can think yet. We just don't. We aren't even CLOSE, and it may not be possible at all.
Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither does the media.
Alternately, we might be less than 10 years away. We don't really know how far off we are or what the dangers are because we don't know what a strong general AI will really look like.
Talking about the dangers of string AI now is a bit like talking about super-weapons in 1920. Sure they saw how science + warfare could increase destructiveness, but there's no more reason they should have anticipated Nukes in 20-30 years in 1920 than 1820.
My answer is "So what?"
I try to take every deduction, every investment, every loophole I can that is legally available to me.
I would expect no less from any other person or company.
Hell, if the US would drop the corporate rate to something even nearly that low, I'll bet Apple and others would bring much of that money home.
But if all of this is legal and it appears to be....then so what?
Paying taxes is not a moral choice, it is a part of doing business.
If you don't like companies or people using the current rules....make some changes, but until then, quit bitching about it.
If YOU want to pay more tax than you legally have to...there is a nice section on the form where you can voluntarily pay additional over and above what you owe.
You realize the poster wanted to change the rules, exactly as you suggested.