Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?
Seems a bit irrational.
It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane.
Not really. HuffPo does some good reporting but they also do bad. Their worst stuff was posting really whacky and dangerous BS like the whole anti-vaxx nonsense. But even on politics they post articles suggesting that Bernie Sanders is winning the Democratic primary when the vast majority of expert analysis suggests it's almost impossible for him to come back.
The fact is that HuffPo will post articles completely out of step with overwhelming expert consensus and seriously misleads its readers to promote its world view.
Now that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong, but you need to be really cautious when HuffPo who hates big business and big oil posts an article claiming that the global oil industry is completely corrupt. It's exactly the thing I'd expect them to potentially exaggerate and take out of context.
Now HuffPo might be giving us a completely accurate account of the scandal and its implication, but I'm going to wait until more trustworthy news sources have started digging into it before I start using this article to update my world view. At the very least I'll see what other news sources think of HuffPo's reporting to see if it passes the smell test.
According to the NRA (and therefore the Republican Party), guns are NEVER a bad idea.
I'm actually not sure if that is their position. There's 2 big ways the convention differs from the cases that the NRA generally talks about when they support open carry.
1) The premises will be very locked down so they can be fairly confident there won't be a bad guy with a gun if they simply say the public doesn't get guns.
2) They'll have authorized armed security, so there will already be good guys with a gun.
AFAIK the NRA has dodged commenting on this issue, I'm generally curious what their position is but I don't think it would be hypocritical either way.
third possibility... they'll be attacked like that draw Muhammad competition in Texas and the whole thing will go down like an attempted armed robbery of a gun store... you know... with some idiot getting shot in the face followed by lots of people in camo laughing at him.
and yeah... I'm a monster because I think its funny too. Seriously though, the demonetization is fever pitched enough at this point that I really wouldn't be surprised if someone went there to shoot up the place. You know, maybe shoot Donald Trump, after all he's the second coming of Hitler right? Or just shoot republicans because after all they're just cis white male scum, no? The demagoguery has gotten so fucking crazy that an attempted mass shooting along those lines is inevitable.
If a mass shooter does show up odds are it's a sovereign citizen type looking to launch a rebellion, a Trump backer trying to strike out at the establishment, or a Christian fundamentalist trying to reclaim the party. Anything is possible with a one-off but domestic terrorism in the US is dominated by the right.
And that being the case, honestly being armed is probably a great idea. The vast majority of gun owners never hurt anyone with their guns and never would or will. So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better. Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
And in the event of a mass shooter how do you suppose they figure out which guy with a gun is the bad guy? It could get very messy very quickly (which is why you leave that job to security).
But the real risk isn't a mass shooter, it's the crowd. We've already had instances of Trump supporters assaulting protesters, what if someone decides a bullet it better than a punch? We've also had Trump threaten riots in the case of a contested convention. Do you think it's that improbable that a fight would break out between Trump and Cruz supporters? What if some crazy on the other side draws, do you draw back? What if he fires? Do you fire back?
Can you need so many people for something like this? Marketers and lawyers, sure, but how many technical people do you need for this?
I'm baffled.
To do a basic version? Not many. To do the best version? Lots.
For the app itself that's fairly easy, but you need to test and patch on every conceivable platform and keep the look and feel as clean as possible.
On the back end side you need 100% uptime or as close to as possible, you've got a crap load of data coming in, GPS, customer profiles, driver info, etc.
There's also a lot of nice haves, what should a driver do between fares? Is there somewhere they should go to anticipate the next fare or should they just hang tight and save fuel?
As well Uber's been criticized a few times for their surge pricing algorithms jumping during an emergency, would be smart to follow twitter or some news sites, detect the emergency, and skip the surge pricing.
That's not even counting their foray into self-driving cars, that's going to need an army.
If you have enough money finding jobs for those devs isn't hard.
Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on...
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?
TODAY the bombers are not Christians
TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!
Get on with REALITY, folks !
Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!
Ok. Lets unpack this.
1) No one was apologizing for anyone, the least of which terrorists.
2) People have defended Muslims as a group, which is legit, it's a very small fraction of Muslims who are carrying out these attacks, the vast majority are horrified by them, most of the time their own families are horrified by them.
3) Of course it's Muslim extremists carrying out attacks today, but on the days when it was the IRA carrying out bombings, extremists killing abortion doctors, or Sovereign Citizens launching "rebellions" no one was really pointing the finger at Christianity.
4) To the extend "Islam" has a bigger problem right now it's really confined to some specific faiths within Islam. If the Muslim sitting next to you is a Shia they're no more likely to be a terrorist than you are.
You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera
Not really. We throw them in jail or deport them when we find them.
The problem is finding them, "Arab" or "Muslim" is a very poor predictor of terrorism, sure there's a bias but the vast majority of Muslim Arabs are completely peaceful, you can't really pick out the bad ones any more than you can pick out the criminals of any group.
No one is standing up for terrorists, but for the good peaceful people who happen to share an ethnicity or religion with terrorists? I'll stand up for them.
International will be as comprehensive as US content withers away...
The real explanation is simple, Netflix was not taken very seriously as a potential channel to displace traditional revenue channels (was seen as free money for little threat), and as Netflix proved it would displace the usual revenue channels, the content holders began being far more demanding as renewal time came around.
I think the bigger factor is competition.
Amazon and Hulu are competing for shows and the broadcasters are starting up their own services as well, I know they lost some titles in Canada because the Canadian networks launched CraveTV and Shomi and they're keeping a lot of shows exclusive for those.
As consumers we want one service to have everything, but the market naturally goes towards exclusive content. A the broadcast rights to a hit show becomes way more valuable when people will actually buy your service just so they can get it.
That's why Netflix has started making so many of their own shows, the BBC can take away Doctor Who and HBO won't give them Game of Thrones. But if you really want to see Jessica Jones or House of Cards then Netflix is your only choice.
If I, as a business owner, can save 28% salary costs on my employees by exclusively hiring women, why would I *ever* hire a man? If women are equal in performance and skill, there is no reason for me to hire men.
That's assuming you correctly asses their performance and skill.
I suspect a lot of the gap (whatever its magnitude) comes from managers underestimating the capability of the female employees relative to men. I've noticed that women I've worked with, regardless of skill and experience, are less likely to be treated as the lead players and they tend not to be the people other people go to with questions. This doesn't even have to be a sexism thing, guys just might be more likely to push themselves into that leadership role, regardless of the cause the effect is that the women have their capabilities underestimated.
No, GP is right, Islam needs a schism between moderate and fundamentalist. Both Shia and Sunni are fundamentalist movements. A moderate Islam would be neither Shia nor Sunni.
There's 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet.
To say someone is Sunni or Shia is about as descriptive as calling someone Protestant. I assure you that 1.6 billion contains moderates, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, transsexuals, and every other kind of person you can imagine. Are you going to claim they're not being proper Muslims?
Shia and Sunni don't need to go away any more than Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation needed to. You just need to wait until the people calling themselves Sunni and Shia start adopting more liberal worldviews.
It feels very strange to me that someone could be set for life, catapaulted to wealth far beyond what most individuals might accrue, based on a legal judgement like this.
I doubt the amount will stick, juries really have no idea how much in damages to award though the final number will be interesting to see.
It really is possible he's lost $55 million in income since his racist comments on the tape really hurt his career. But should Gawker be on the hook for that, even if they were wrong in publishing the tape?
If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.
And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.
Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.
What scares me is that given it is harder to recruit black hats and they have access to less qualified work force they do a pretty good job at defeating top notch major in CS.
Our HR recruitment process are clearly recruiting expansive work force, but not a good one.
There are a ton of extremely competent and trustworthy devs/sysadmins/architects who have never been blackhats, they just cost a lot of money because everyone wants an extremely competent and trustworthy dev/sysadmin/architect.
There's a tiny handful of extremely competent and really untrustworthy devs/sysadmins/architects who have been blackhats, they might do good work, but they also might get pissed off and decide your organization needs to be taught a lesson.
Do you really think Ghostshell will do such fantastic work that it justifies the risk of giving him root access?
I feel more and more uncomfortable with the actual lack of practical knowledge of dev/sysadmins/architects that comes out of schools to directly push stuff in production that are shit.
25 years I do this job, 25 years I know how to avoid SQL injections, 25 years I get fired for asking we remove these from our code base, as much as obsolete ciphers, shell injection, cookie theft, mechanism that result in amplification of DOS...
If you got fired for trying to fix the code base then there was either other stuff going on or you were really terrible at office politics.
It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.
I see the same exact thing happening again.
People want change and they love an underdog.
The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.
I honestly see almost nothing in common.
Obama came from relative obscurity starting small and expected to stay small, Trump was already a huge celebrity starting huge who people expected to implode.
Obama was seen as a current and future star of the party (just not the nominee that year), Trump was first seen as a joke and then an existential threat.
Obama sold hope, Trump sells fear.
Obama is a minority, came from a relatively middle class family, and stayed middle class for much of his adult life, Trump is white, from extreme wealth, and more or less stayed that way.
Obama's fundamental appeal was leading forward progress for a better tomorrow, Trump's is forcefully repealing progress to return to a better past.
Aside from the fact they were both underdogs they're almost polar opposites.
That creates an interesting question assuming you agree with the empirical evidence that Ted Cruz is very dishonest.
I basically see three main possibilities:
1) It's just a coincidence that a very insincere face is coupled with a very insincere man. The researcher suggests this though he's basically just repeating the null hypothesis.
2) Cruz's face behaves the way it does because he's so dishonest. The brain uses different circuits when lying or manipulating (ie fake smile vs genuine smile). If he's spent years being highly manipulative the circuits that control how his face move might work subtly different.
3) Finally he might be lying so much because he realizes he looks dishonest and has come to identify as such (or he's learned people won't believe him regardless).
I suspect it's one of the latter two, our brains don't do perfect heuristics but they're often based on something real.
This reminds me of the study that found hockey players with rounder faces were more aggressive. Of course that doesn't tell you if the aggression and round face were both caused by the same underlying factor (ie testosterone) or if the players were acting more aggressive because they looked more aggressive.
She's not especially clever. She's not especially wise.
What evidence do you have for this? She's made a couple mistakes (like supporting the Iraq war) but she's always sounded very intelligent and she was secretary of state, which typically goes to someone extremely competent.
There's nothing there. She's Bill Clinton's wife. That's what she's been running on from the beginning.
It got her on the national stage, and it gives people some idea what to expect from her, but she's been running as herself for many years.
Really, what could she possibly do at this point that you wouldn't find a way to credit to her husband instead?
And it is why she's basically being given the Democrat nomination. She won 6 out of 6 coin tosses and won 7 out of 7 high card draws. Consider the odds of that happening. (.5^13) x 100 = 0.01% chance of that happening.
Actually is was 6/7 coins, but seriously WTF? You realize this was at caucuses with literally dozens of people watching in each case, how is your conspiracy theory supposed to work? Do you think the organizers were secret Hillary agents with a special trick coin for the extremely unlikely scenario of a draw?
Did you even think through this conspiracy theory of yours?
Against her... for some fucking reason... is Trump. And anything you can say against him is true many times over for her.
Really? I wasn't aware she was an extremely rude and inarticulate racist rapist who has almost certainly vastly overstated their personal wealth and who's platform consists of a mixture of stupid ideas that are some combination of impossible, unconstitutional, and are laughably unaffordable.
No, she is a criminal. She should be in prison. She should have been in prison long ago after running the elderly out of their houses. That was just the start of her corrupt political career. I'd might as well be voting for some third world dictator thug. At least Trump is not a criminal. That's about what it boils down to.
From the evidence presented I think it's quite likely he did rape his wife in 1989, it would hardly be the first rape that wasn't pursued in court and his lawyer's bizarre defence that raping your wife is not a crime is hardly convincing.
Of course, there's the very real possibility that Trump is sincere in his brand of crazy, and that this resonates with a lot of people.
You should be afraid of this possibility. Very very afraid.
Unlikely, Trump's vision of a Trump Presidency doesn't go much beyond the idea of a Trump Presidency. It's all about showing off his ego. That's why he's always obsessed with everyone talking him and attacks anyone who threatens him. He brags about his poll numbers and supporters the same way he brags about expensive paintings, they're another possession to show off his wealth and power. If he'd seen an opening on the Democratic side he'd be quite comfortable arguing for mass legalization and banning all guns.
Of course that doesn't mean he's less of a risk, even if his beliefs aren't strongly rooted he'll believe them as much as his supporters believe them. And if Trump ever got into office his major priority would be to become the "greatest President ever" which means doing some major action or series of actions that will serve as a major legacy. Is that mass deportation? A war? A massive change to the tax code? Whatever it is the motive won't be implementing some vision for America, it will be promoting the name Trump.
the very link from the story reveals you are making up figures. The range is 100 meters (~320 feet) (look at the specifications tab), not 160 feet as you said.... and 8 minutes, not 6.
So are you incompetent or lying?
Do you have any idea how far a drone can go in eight minutes? Even with the reduced flying time from carrying a half pound of C4, it could be hundreds of feet away in under a minute.
The fact you think this is a harmless toy with zero possible destructive possibility is alarming for a Slashdot poster.
Except it can't go "hundreds of feet away" if the range is only 100 meters.
I'm really dubious the specific drone in question could be used as an effective weapon for carrying bombs. But are there other drones that could? Definitely. And they're probably doing a blanket ban on that basis.
1) Exposing yourself to cold doesn't seem to be a viable weight loss strategy. This actually makes sense since the best response to be being cold is adding insulation, either way trying to lose weight by making yourself cold is apparently a thing.
2) Probiotics may be overrated. Its true they're really critical to regulating body weight but it looks like the body has already figured that out. As much as you're eating yogurt to push the culture one way your body may be trying to push it somewhere else.
I'm unclear why you're being marked down, it's not an untrue statement. Even if it's not intentional, it's certainly happening. Uber cut rates and while they offered a "guarantee' the prices posted are before Uber takes a 20% cut (again...even off of the "guaranteed fee"). Uber didn't drop their commission rate with the cuts and is, instead, spending gobs of money in China. This would appear, by any reasonable person, to look like they're exploiting their US-based Uber drivers. I can't see a good reason to really disagree with him other than to say "well maybe it's not intentional." And that's not really a disagreement about the nature of what his message throwing out.
I'm not a fan of Uber but I'm not sure this reasoning is really valid.
Companies don't approach salary with the idea of "how much can I afford to pay this employee without losing money", they go "how little can I pay this person and still have them work for me".
So Uber didn't cut rates for US drivers so they could spend money in China, they cut rates for US drivers because it made them more money.
Second it's not really revenue from US operations that they're using to fund their extension into China and much as it's money from their investors who think they'll get a payoff from cornering the Chinese market (while preventing a Chinese Uber from emerging and hitting their current markets).
I say that with a maximum of snark, but it truly is just weather. El Niño weather, to be precise. And the inflammatory headline is the usual nonsense, contradicted by its own summary. It says recorded history began in 1951. My parents might have something to say about that.
Why do we have to put up with such bullshit reporting? Does Slashdot really make that much money off of the page views driven by irate commenters?
It's a big outlier, but that outlier is at least partly driven by a change in the mean and variance.
As for the broader point it's not so much that the warm January is evidence itself of global warming but the warm January gives people something tangible to associate with global warming.
It doesn't matter how good the science is, people don't even plan for their retirement, do you think they're going to care about the predicted climate 50 years from now? They need to see climate change doing something today.
You need to give them something current and tangible if they're going to accept it, true the warm January is only caused by climate change the same way a heads is caused by an unfair coin, but you sometimes need to be fine with people coming to the right answer through the wrong route.
The longest previous delay in replacing a justice was about a third as long as the time until the next president takes office. It's an insanely horrible precedent to propose keeping the seat vacant for a year and would have permanent negative ramifications.
Don't worry, if a Republican wins the election all the Democrats have to do is filibuster the nominee until 2021!
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?
Seems a bit irrational.
It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane.
Not really. HuffPo does some good reporting but they also do bad. Their worst stuff was posting really whacky and dangerous BS like the whole anti-vaxx nonsense. But even on politics they post articles suggesting that Bernie Sanders is winning the Democratic primary when the vast majority of expert analysis suggests it's almost impossible for him to come back.
The fact is that HuffPo will post articles completely out of step with overwhelming expert consensus and seriously misleads its readers to promote its world view.
Now that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong, but you need to be really cautious when HuffPo who hates big business and big oil posts an article claiming that the global oil industry is completely corrupt. It's exactly the thing I'd expect them to potentially exaggerate and take out of context.
Now HuffPo might be giving us a completely accurate account of the scandal and its implication, but I'm going to wait until more trustworthy news sources have started digging into it before I start using this article to update my world view. At the very least I'll see what other news sources think of HuffPo's reporting to see if it passes the smell test.
Guns at the convention is a REALLY bad idea.
According to the NRA (and therefore the Republican Party), guns are NEVER a bad idea.
I'm actually not sure if that is their position. There's 2 big ways the convention differs from the cases that the NRA generally talks about when they support open carry.
1) The premises will be very locked down so they can be fairly confident there won't be a bad guy with a gun if they simply say the public doesn't get guns.
2) They'll have authorized armed security, so there will already be good guys with a gun.
AFAIK the NRA has dodged commenting on this issue, I'm generally curious what their position is but I don't think it would be hypocritical either way.
third possibility... they'll be attacked like that draw Muhammad competition in Texas and the whole thing will go down like an attempted armed robbery of a gun store... you know... with some idiot getting shot in the face followed by lots of people in camo laughing at him.
and yeah... I'm a monster because I think its funny too. Seriously though, the demonetization is fever pitched enough at this point that I really wouldn't be surprised if someone went there to shoot up the place. You know, maybe shoot Donald Trump, after all he's the second coming of Hitler right? Or just shoot republicans because after all they're just cis white male scum, no? The demagoguery has gotten so fucking crazy that an attempted mass shooting along those lines is inevitable.
If a mass shooter does show up odds are it's a sovereign citizen type looking to launch a rebellion, a Trump backer trying to strike out at the establishment, or a Christian fundamentalist trying to reclaim the party. Anything is possible with a one-off but domestic terrorism in the US is dominated by the right.
And that being the case, honestly being armed is probably a great idea. The vast majority of gun owners never hurt anyone with their guns and never would or will. So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better. Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
And in the event of a mass shooter how do you suppose they figure out which guy with a gun is the bad guy? It could get very messy very quickly (which is why you leave that job to security).
But the real risk isn't a mass shooter, it's the crowd. We've already had instances of Trump supporters assaulting protesters, what if someone decides a bullet it better than a punch? We've also had Trump threaten riots in the case of a contested convention. Do you think it's that improbable that a fight would break out between Trump and Cruz supporters? What if some crazy on the other side draws, do you draw back? What if he fires? Do you fire back?
Guns at the convention is a REALLY bad idea.
Can you need so many people for something like this? Marketers and lawyers, sure, but how many technical people do you need for this?
I'm baffled.
To do a basic version? Not many. To do the best version? Lots.
For the app itself that's fairly easy, but you need to test and patch on every conceivable platform and keep the look and feel as clean as possible.
On the back end side you need 100% uptime or as close to as possible, you've got a crap load of data coming in, GPS, customer profiles, driver info, etc.
There's also a lot of nice haves, what should a driver do between fares? Is there somewhere they should go to anticipate the next fare or should they just hang tight and save fuel?
As well Uber's been criticized a few times for their surge pricing algorithms jumping during an emergency, would be smart to follow twitter or some news sites, detect the emergency, and skip the surge pricing.
That's not even counting their foray into self-driving cars, that's going to need an army.
If you have enough money finding jobs for those devs isn't hard.
Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?
TODAY the bombers are not Christians
TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!
Get on with REALITY, folks !
Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!
Ok. Lets unpack this.
1) No one was apologizing for anyone, the least of which terrorists.
2) People have defended Muslims as a group, which is legit, it's a very small fraction of Muslims who are carrying out these attacks, the vast majority are horrified by them, most of the time their own families are horrified by them.
3) Of course it's Muslim extremists carrying out attacks today, but on the days when it was the IRA carrying out bombings, extremists killing abortion doctors, or Sovereign Citizens launching "rebellions" no one was really pointing the finger at Christianity.
4) To the extend "Islam" has a bigger problem right now it's really confined to some specific faiths within Islam. If the Muslim sitting next to you is a Shia they're no more likely to be a terrorist than you are.
You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera
Not really. We throw them in jail or deport them when we find them.
The problem is finding them, "Arab" or "Muslim" is a very poor predictor of terrorism, sure there's a bias but the vast majority of Muslim Arabs are completely peaceful, you can't really pick out the bad ones any more than you can pick out the criminals of any group.
No one is standing up for terrorists, but for the good peaceful people who happen to share an ethnicity or religion with terrorists? I'll stand up for them.
International will be as comprehensive as US content withers away...
The real explanation is simple, Netflix was not taken very seriously as a potential channel to displace traditional revenue channels (was seen as free money for little threat), and as Netflix proved it would displace the usual revenue channels, the content holders began being far more demanding as renewal time came around.
I think the bigger factor is competition.
Amazon and Hulu are competing for shows and the broadcasters are starting up their own services as well, I know they lost some titles in Canada because the Canadian networks launched CraveTV and Shomi and they're keeping a lot of shows exclusive for those.
As consumers we want one service to have everything, but the market naturally goes towards exclusive content. A the broadcast rights to a hit show becomes way more valuable when people will actually buy your service just so they can get it.
That's why Netflix has started making so many of their own shows, the BBC can take away Doctor Who and HBO won't give them Game of Thrones. But if you really want to see Jessica Jones or House of Cards then Netflix is your only choice.
If I, as a business owner, can save 28% salary costs on my employees by exclusively hiring women, why would I *ever* hire a man? If women are equal in performance and skill, there is no reason for me to hire men.
That's assuming you correctly asses their performance and skill.
I suspect a lot of the gap (whatever its magnitude) comes from managers underestimating the capability of the female employees relative to men. I've noticed that women I've worked with, regardless of skill and experience, are less likely to be treated as the lead players and they tend not to be the people other people go to with questions. This doesn't even have to be a sexism thing, guys just might be more likely to push themselves into that leadership role, regardless of the cause the effect is that the women have their capabilities underestimated.
No, GP is right, Islam needs a schism between moderate and fundamentalist. Both Shia and Sunni are fundamentalist movements. A moderate Islam would be neither Shia nor Sunni.
There's 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet.
To say someone is Sunni or Shia is about as descriptive as calling someone Protestant. I assure you that 1.6 billion contains moderates, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, transsexuals, and every other kind of person you can imagine. Are you going to claim they're not being proper Muslims?
Shia and Sunni don't need to go away any more than Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation needed to. You just need to wait until the people calling themselves Sunni and Shia start adopting more liberal worldviews.
It feels very strange to me that someone could be set for life, catapaulted to wealth far beyond what most individuals might accrue, based on a legal judgement like this.
I doubt the amount will stick, juries really have no idea how much in damages to award though the final number will be interesting to see.
It really is possible he's lost $55 million in income since his racist comments on the tape really hurt his career. But should Gawker be on the hook for that, even if they were wrong in publishing the tape?
If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.
And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.
Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.
What scares me is that given it is harder to recruit black hats and they have access to less qualified work force they do a pretty good job at defeating top notch major in CS.
Our HR recruitment process are clearly recruiting expansive work force, but not a good one.
There are a ton of extremely competent and trustworthy devs/sysadmins/architects who have never been blackhats, they just cost a lot of money because everyone wants an extremely competent and trustworthy dev/sysadmin/architect.
There's a tiny handful of extremely competent and really untrustworthy devs/sysadmins/architects who have been blackhats, they might do good work, but they also might get pissed off and decide your organization needs to be taught a lesson.
Do you really think Ghostshell will do such fantastic work that it justifies the risk of giving him root access?
I feel more and more uncomfortable with the actual lack of practical knowledge of dev/sysadmins/architects that comes out of schools to directly push stuff in production that are shit.
25 years I do this job, 25 years I know how to avoid SQL injections, 25 years I get fired for asking we remove these from our code base, as much as obsolete ciphers, shell injection, cookie theft, mechanism that result in amplification of DOS ...
If you got fired for trying to fix the code base then there was either other stuff going on or you were really terrible at office politics.
This is how I feel as well.
It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.
I see the same exact thing happening again.
People want change and they love an underdog.
The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.
I honestly see almost nothing in common.
Obama came from relative obscurity starting small and expected to stay small, Trump was already a huge celebrity starting huge who people expected to implode.
Obama was seen as a current and future star of the party (just not the nominee that year), Trump was first seen as a joke and then an existential threat.
Obama sold hope, Trump sells fear.
Obama is a minority, came from a relatively middle class family, and stayed middle class for much of his adult life, Trump is white, from extreme wealth, and more or less stayed that way.
Obama's fundamental appeal was leading forward progress for a better tomorrow, Trump's is forcefully repealing progress to return to a better past.
Aside from the fact they were both underdogs they're almost polar opposites.
That creates an interesting question assuming you agree with the empirical evidence that Ted Cruz is very dishonest.
I basically see three main possibilities:
1) It's just a coincidence that a very insincere face is coupled with a very insincere man. The researcher suggests this though he's basically just repeating the null hypothesis.
2) Cruz's face behaves the way it does because he's so dishonest. The brain uses different circuits when lying or manipulating (ie fake smile vs genuine smile). If he's spent years being highly manipulative the circuits that control how his face move might work subtly different.
3) Finally he might be lying so much because he realizes he looks dishonest and has come to identify as such (or he's learned people won't believe him regardless).
I suspect it's one of the latter two, our brains don't do perfect heuristics but they're often based on something real.
This reminds me of the study that found hockey players with rounder faces were more aggressive. Of course that doesn't tell you if the aggression and round face were both caused by the same underlying factor (ie testosterone) or if the players were acting more aggressive because they looked more aggressive.
She's not especially clever. She's not especially wise.
What evidence do you have for this? She's made a couple mistakes (like supporting the Iraq war) but she's always sounded very intelligent and she was secretary of state, which typically goes to someone extremely competent.
There's nothing there. She's Bill Clinton's wife. That's what she's been running on from the beginning.
It got her on the national stage, and it gives people some idea what to expect from her, but she's been running as herself for many years.
Really, what could she possibly do at this point that you wouldn't find a way to credit to her husband instead?
And it is why she's basically being given the Democrat nomination. She won 6 out of 6 coin tosses and won 7 out of 7 high card draws. Consider the odds of that happening.
(.5^13) x 100 = 0.01% chance of that happening.
Actually is was 6/7 coins, but seriously WTF? You realize this was at caucuses with literally dozens of people watching in each case, how is your conspiracy theory supposed to work? Do you think the organizers were secret Hillary agents with a special trick coin for the extremely unlikely scenario of a draw?
Did you even think through this conspiracy theory of yours?
Against her... for some fucking reason... is Trump. And anything you can say against him is true many times over for her.
Really? I wasn't aware she was an extremely rude and inarticulate racist rapist who has almost certainly vastly overstated their personal wealth and who's platform consists of a mixture of stupid ideas that are some combination of impossible, unconstitutional, and are laughably unaffordable.
No, she is a criminal. She should be in prison. She should have been in prison long ago after running the elderly out of their houses. That was just the start of her corrupt political career. I'd might as well be voting for some third world dictator thug. At least Trump is not a criminal. That's about what it boils down to.
Are you sure Trump isn't a criminal?
From the evidence presented I think it's quite likely he did rape his wife in 1989, it would hardly be the first rape that wasn't pursued in court and his lawyer's bizarre defence that raping your wife is not a crime is hardly convincing.
Of course, there's the very real possibility that Trump is sincere in his brand of crazy, and that this resonates with a lot of people.
You should be afraid of this possibility. Very very afraid.
Unlikely, Trump's vision of a Trump Presidency doesn't go much beyond the idea of a Trump Presidency. It's all about showing off his ego. That's why he's always obsessed with everyone talking him and attacks anyone who threatens him. He brags about his poll numbers and supporters the same way he brags about expensive paintings, they're another possession to show off his wealth and power. If he'd seen an opening on the Democratic side he'd be quite comfortable arguing for mass legalization and banning all guns.
Of course that doesn't mean he's less of a risk, even if his beliefs aren't strongly rooted he'll believe them as much as his supporters believe them. And if Trump ever got into office his major priority would be to become the "greatest President ever" which means doing some major action or series of actions that will serve as a major legacy. Is that mass deportation? A war? A massive change to the tax code? Whatever it is the motive won't be implementing some vision for America, it will be promoting the name Trump.
> Except it can't go "hundreds of feet away" if the range is only 100 meters.
You wouldn't happen to be an American, would you? If so, get off the 'net. You're making your countrymen look even more stupid.
Actually I'm Canadian. I forgot how puny your feet were :)
the very link from the story reveals you are making up figures. The range is 100 meters (~320 feet) (look at the specifications tab), not 160 feet as you said.... and 8 minutes, not 6.
So are you incompetent or lying?
Do you have any idea how far a drone can go in eight minutes? Even with the reduced flying time from carrying a half pound of C4, it could be hundreds of feet away in under a minute.
The fact you think this is a harmless toy with zero possible destructive possibility is alarming for a Slashdot poster.
Except it can't go "hundreds of feet away" if the range is only 100 meters.
I'm really dubious the specific drone in question could be used as an effective weapon for carrying bombs. But are there other drones that could? Definitely. And they're probably doing a blanket ban on that basis.
I'm drawing two conclusions from this:
1) Exposing yourself to cold doesn't seem to be a viable weight loss strategy. This actually makes sense since the best response to be being cold is adding insulation, either way trying to lose weight by making yourself cold is apparently a thing.
2) Probiotics may be overrated. Its true they're really critical to regulating body weight but it looks like the body has already figured that out. As much as you're eating yogurt to push the culture one way your body may be trying to push it somewhere else.
I'm unclear why you're being marked down, it's not an untrue statement. Even if it's not intentional, it's certainly happening. Uber cut rates and while they offered a "guarantee' the prices posted are before Uber takes a 20% cut (again...even off of the "guaranteed fee"). Uber didn't drop their commission rate with the cuts and is, instead, spending gobs of money in China. This would appear, by any reasonable person, to look like they're exploiting their US-based Uber drivers. I can't see a good reason to really disagree with him other than to say "well maybe it's not intentional." And that's not really a disagreement about the nature of what his message throwing out.
I'm not a fan of Uber but I'm not sure this reasoning is really valid.
Companies don't approach salary with the idea of "how much can I afford to pay this employee without losing money", they go "how little can I pay this person and still have them work for me".
So Uber didn't cut rates for US drivers so they could spend money in China, they cut rates for US drivers because it made them more money.
Second it's not really revenue from US operations that they're using to fund their extension into China and much as it's money from their investors who think they'll get a payoff from cornering the Chinese market (while preventing a Chinese Uber from emerging and hitting their current markets).
It's just weather.
I say that with a maximum of snark, but it truly is just weather. El Niño weather, to be precise. And the inflammatory headline is the usual nonsense, contradicted by its own summary. It says recorded history began in 1951. My parents might have something to say about that.
Why do we have to put up with such bullshit reporting? Does Slashdot really make that much money off of the page views driven by irate commenters?
It's a big outlier, but that outlier is at least partly driven by a change in the mean and variance.
As for the broader point it's not so much that the warm January is evidence itself of global warming but the warm January gives people something tangible to associate with global warming.
It doesn't matter how good the science is, people don't even plan for their retirement, do you think they're going to care about the predicted climate 50 years from now? They need to see climate change doing something today.
You need to give them something current and tangible if they're going to accept it, true the warm January is only caused by climate change the same way a heads is caused by an unfair coin, but you sometimes need to be fine with people coming to the right answer through the wrong route.
It turns out software development is engineering, not clerical work.
And how do you know those women were doing clerical work?
I think I counted 11 different women the only two that looked definitively clerical were a secretary and a "coding clerk and keypunch operator".
I don't know exactly what the operations supervisor and computer operators did but my guess would be coding or sysadmin.
Just because it's a woman doing the job doesn't mean it's clerical work.
The longest previous delay in replacing a justice was about a third as long as the time until the next president takes office. It's an insanely horrible precedent to propose keeping the seat vacant for a year and would have permanent negative ramifications.
Don't worry, if a Republican wins the election all the Democrats have to do is filibuster the nominee until 2021!
Except Trump will recommend Oprah.
I'm sure an empowered black woman is at the top of Trump's list.