Most scientists have snorted at the idea, noting correctly that such a thing would violate observed physical laws.
The EM drive was discussed at length on other sites, and few posts were able to shine any light on the issue. Some items of note:
First, if your understanding of physics does *not* predict the Casimir effect, then you probably shouldn't be blithely dismissing the theory. The EM drive is based on a theory of physics that's more sophisticated than simple "momentum is conserved". It supposes an hypothesis that's different than what is currently accepted, but in a subtle way that is difficult to detect.
It's similar to relativity: most of our tests validate Newtonian physics, but you find relativity when you go looking for it.
Second, if you want to appeal to Noether's theorem, note that the theorem refers to smooth manifolds. If space is quantized, then Noether's theorem doesn't apply (despite being true). It's possible that Noether's theorem will break down at small scales. (If space is smooth, ie *not* quantized, then the true location of any particle is a [mathematical] real number with infinite entropy and it's action is non-computable. Not that having a non-computable universe is a problem, but...)
All in all, I get the impression that everyone commenting on the EM drive should probably keep quiet and let the experts sort it out.
I don't have any comment on either the theory or the experiment, but it's an interesting proposal.
From the Wikipedia page:
This is analyzed by Rothman and Boughn[32] who point out that the standard theory of radiation pressure is more complicated than the simplified analysis suggests.
I may be asking too much here, but I would love to know what people think of 16.04 from a real-world, practical perspective. What can you do with it that you couldn't with previous versions? What, in your opinion, has improved? Any issues?
I'd be happy to oblige, except...
If I mention one problem, people are going to say "that's not ubuntu, it's the desktop!"
If I mention another problem, people are going to say "that's an easy fix! Just go to/etc/mumble/bimple and edit fragbum.cfg file. Navigate to the "Enable Blather Frills" line and set the 1 to a 2 and that'll fix it.
(Don't believe me? Try changing the swappiness: "sudo bash -c "echo 'vm.swappiness = 15' >>/etc/sysctl.conf". What the heck is swappiness anyway, and why did I need to change it?)
If I mention a problem in any application, it's always "It's free. If you don't like it, why don't you build your *own* video editor?".
I can't just report a bug on a project website, I have to register and "become part of the team!". Ten years after, and I'm *still* getting E-mails from the GCC project from a bug I posted. ("Respond with Unsubscribe" doesn't work, because my E-mail provider changes the subject line.)
I've given up on both bug reporting and learning about programs.
Basically, when I get an error message I just cut/paste the error into the search bar, click on the stack exchange link of the *first* person to get that error, and cut/paste the answer into my system. Usually it starts "sudo apt-get ".
(I just recently fixed my emacs to not show the intro screen on startup. It took me 2 tries: firstly, I cut/paste the requisite line "(setq inhibit-splash-screen t)" only to find that I *already* have that in my config file! So then I tried adding "(setq inhibit-startup-message t)" and that didn't work either.
I had to navigate: Options -> customize emacs -> top-level customization -> environment group -> initialization and set "inhibit startup screen" to on.
All that seems reasonable if you know ahead of time where that option lives, but I defy anyone to find that option, knowing what you want to do and knowing that there's an option somewhere that does it. You have to sort through mounds of pages and options.
Oh, and the options aren't always in alphabetical order, so even if you are following the StackExchange answer, it's always 'jest a liddle bit harder' than normal.)
At first I thought this was a clever Islamophobe troll, given the general quality of the comments lately, that was going to conclude by claiming that Christians and Jews are the farmers and Muslims are the herders. [...] Then I looked up and saw your nick, so I kept reading.
I cannot for the life of me find the book that presents this theory. It might have been this one. I think this might link to the original paper somewhere.
The study had students fill out a form and then walk down a long corridor to submit the form to the researcher. Along the way they had to slide past another student moving a locker.
After sliding past, the student moving the locker mumbled "asshole" under their breath. When the student got to the end to deliver the form, their stress hormones were measured.
(The student moving the locker was in on the research, and the student delivering the paper wasn't aware of any of this.)
The study found that people whose ancestors were farmers tended to let the insult go, while people whose ancestors were herders were more apt to take offence.
The book was quite engaging, especially the sections about the hill people of Tennessee. We only hear about the Hatfields and McCoys, but there was apparently a *lot* of killing going on in those small communities. Something like 14% of *everyone* died by violence in that small area during that time.
[Will's Mom:] “Die like a man, like your brother did!” She belonged to a world so well acquainted with fatal gunshots that she had certain expectations about how they ought to be endured. Will shut his mouth, and he died.”
It puts an interesting perspective on human behaviour.
False. The Breviks of this world are an exception to the rule. Humans evolved to cooperate. Those who didn't pull their weight were generally less fruitful in the reproductive stakes and those anti-social traits remain rare.
Actually, that's not *entirely* true either.
Humans evolved into two categories, roughly "farmers" and "herders".
Farmers don't have to worry about someone stealing the fruits of their labor. No one's going to steal their crops unless they take the time and effort to harvest them, so the farmer doesn't have to worry too much about other people.
So farmers tend to be more easy-going, more forgiving, more intelligent (geometry, long-term planning, surveying), and more cooperative. It doesn't hurt you if your neighbour succeeds, so it's OK to help out when he needs it.
Herders worry about their flock being stolen. Anyone can steal their life's work overnight, or kill them and take the herd in an afternoon. They're always on the lookout for the other herder who wants to get a leg up by easy means. Your neighbour competes with you for grazing space, so helping him diminishes your chances.
So herders tend to be confrontational, quick to anger, and violent. They present a "don't mess with me" attitude to show the other herders that they can't be taken advantage of. They have have a highly evolved sense of honour, ritualized revenge, blood feuds, and massacre entire families.
(Studies on Americans show that the "quick to anger" trait can be predicted by ancestor type, and remains even 300 years after your ancestors came to America.)
And so we have interesting situations like the blue hills of Tennessee which were settled mostly by herders. Rocky, grassy area good for herds but not especially good for farming.
...and blood feuds (think Hatfields and McCoys) resulting in thousands of deaths over the course of a couple of decades.
You can paint certain people as "monsters", but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as that.
Some people evolved to be confrontational - that's all.
And for comparison, here's what the US did to [then] Bradley Manning.
She was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into her mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded.
Her cell was 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink. The jail had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other. Her lawyer said the guards behaved professionally, and had not tried to harass or embarrass Manning. She was allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals were taken in the cell, and she was shackled during visits. There was access to television when it was placed in the corridor, and she was allowed to keep one magazine and one book.
On January 18, 2011, after Manning had an altercation with the guards, the commander of Quantico classified her as a suicide risk. Manning said the guards had begun issuing conflicting commands, such as "turn left, don't turn left," and upbraiding her for responding to commands with "yes" instead of "aye." Shortly afterwards, she was placed on suicide watch, had her clothing and eyeglasses removed, and was required to remain in her cell 24 hours a day. The suicide watch was lifted on January 21 after a complaint from her lawyer, and the brig commander who ordered it was replaced. On March 2 she was told that her request for removal of POI status—which entailed among other things sleeping wearing only boxer shorts—had been denied. Her lawyer said Manning joked to the guards that, if she wanted to harm herself, she could do so with her underwear or her flip-flops. The comment resulted in Manning being ordered to strip naked in her cell that night and sleep without clothing. On the following morning only, Manning stood naked for inspection.
Until I read the OP article, I had always considered the US to be a fairly civilized place. Reading about the Norwegian jail and how they generally treat their prisoners, I got the distinct feeling that we, the US, are looking up from the bottom of the curve at the civilized people of the world.
I remember a photo of Richard Reid being transported to Guantanamo, who was naked and strapped immobile to a gurney, and toted around in complete view of the public while being transported (hence the photo, which I couldn't find in a quick search).
Reid was SO DANGEROUS that he couldn't be allowed clothing, shackles weren't sufficient, and had to be sent to an offshore prison.
The Saudis said in a report in the New York Times that they might sell "up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States" if the bill passes.
Tell me again how running up a big national debt isn't a problem, and how we shouldn't be worries because "sovereign debt" isn't the same as "private debt".
(And how China won't turn around and try to blackmail us economically, because they'd be cutting their own throat in the process.)
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
In the 1950s, Hollywood had a policy of a blacklisting communist party members, denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians and so on. Those people couldn't find work for years after.
Trump seems to be the new communist party. People think nothing of petitioning stores to discontinue his products, disrupting his rallys, or publishing blatant lies. We accept this, because we feel that corporations have free speech, and so can do whatever they want.
I'm glad Facebook is standing up to this nonsense. Businesses exist by license from the government, and with that should come a measure of public good. That means neutrality in their business dealings. If Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to purchase political ads that's OK, that's what the "corporate free speech" is about.
But denying equal services?
Hurting Trump by indirect means is the new McCarthyism(*).
In Iran you can vote for anyone for President so long as that person has been approved by the Ayatollah Khameini. We Americans call that system a dictatorship.
Voters in America recently discovered that they live under an Iranian type of system and didn’t know it. In the primaries, voters participate in some sort of ritualistic placebo voting while party leaders select the candidates.
Remember, boys and girls, only the outcome matters.
Trump has to be stopped, by any means possible!.
(*) Stopping him personally doesn't seem to work, so I expect that soon we'll have businesses tamping down on his supporters. I couldn't find a news article about an employee fired for posting pro-Trump on their facebook page, but I expect that this will happen soon.
The median college debt is $29k. Not only that, but
You're absolutely right, and I apologize.
I slipped while editing and hit "submit" after one round of typing. I usually take a round of fact-checking, and the whole thing is run-on and wanders about the point. Yuck.
That's no excuse, but it's the reason the post is so awful.
We could have continued increasing productivity, at least into the foreseeable future.
I remember a couple of decades ago when telecommuting became possible (roughly 1990), and the IRS stepped in with rules that made it less inviting as an option. Among other things, you couldn't deduct the expenses of your home office, and you could no longer be a consultant (1099), you still had to be a regular employee (W-2). Unless, of course, you were a doctor, lawyer, or architect - those three professions were excepted from the rule.
A little later, someone pointed out that GE pays no taxes (among many other businesses), leading to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to start a business that makes a competing product.
Microsoft did its "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing to a bunch of other companies. Microsoft would "consider purchasing" your software business, sign an NDA and send in some engineers to check out the internals and otherwise determine the fitness of the purchase, choose not to purchase, then come out with a competing product 6 months later.
This happened so many times it became a meme.
(Let's not forget that Microsoft illegally forced itself on many computers. Whole companies sprang up to deal with viruses and other security exploits, while a viable alternative floundered. The first person to purchase a computer and return the Windows software got sued by Microsoft, and had to justify his actions.)
We gave the telecom companies $200 billion to bring everyone up to broadband. They took the money and did nothing - much of the country can't get internet access, Comcast can be the most hated company in America, and mobile phone service is spotty, the quality is choppy, and the communications insecure.
We give away our productivity and resources to other countries for little or no gain, we've been neglecting our roads and bridges, our electric service is outdated and increasingly unreliable, our health care is third-world-class. Our education is top-heavy with administration and mindless rules, and the cost of extended education burdens the student for the rest of their life.
(It's really hard to start a new business, make an innovative invention or do scientific research, when you're burdened with education expenses for the rest of your life, have to hold down a low-paying job just to survive because the high-paying one was outsourced to a H1B, can't get good internet service, and are forced to use Windows compatible software, and have to purchase health insurance at $5,000 per year per family member.)
====
This is in stark contrast with, for example, America of the 1920s. Reading newspaper articles of the times shows that the country was hopping with ideas. Just about everyone on the street in NYC had ideas on how to start a business, invent a new machine, or otherwise make their fortune in America.
Immigration was easy, just show up and get registered. Immigration was a self-selecting evolutionary sieve for people who were smart and could get along with other groups. You had to leave your family, community and support system behind, and learn a new language, culture, and laws. But if you could do it, you could make enough money to have the rest of your family come over to join you.
(Nowadays it takes 10 years and $30,000 for a Russian (to use an example) to emigrate to the US... if you win the immigration lottery.)
====
My point for all this is that we *could* still be having increases in productivity. If we just eased up on all the arbitrary unfairness and burden we place on the people, The electronics revolution isn't quite over yet, the internet revolution is about half over, there's a ton of room for innovation in medical sciences, and the bio revolution is just getting started. (And the start of the AI revolution might be very cl
Firstly, if he was rich enough to have a Porche (roughly $100K, depending on options), he was probably making a lot of money. A smart person could be putting that money away to become financially independent.
Trading 7 years for not having to work for the rest of your life sounds like a good trade to me.
(Assuming he was smart enough to sock away the money, assuming that it wasn't confiscated, and assuming he can tolerate Russian prison.)
it seems like they would have a chain-of-evidence problem here
There is no problem, because the terrorist is dead. They are not prosecuting him, thus there is no defense team nit-picking their tactics.
Can you answer a question for me?
Suppose rooting around on the phone they find evidence of someone helping them plan and execute their crimes. Suppose the evidence doesn't directly indicate culpability, but strongly implies it.
Can that be used as evidence against such a 3rd party conspirator?
Would chain-of-evidence be broken, and could that be used as a defence in court?
>> I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump
I think you were reading Chris Weigant's "How Trump Could Win It All" article from December 30, 2015 in The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Thank you for the followup.
The article I read literally had a bullet-point list with some ten or twelve entries, so it wasn't your *exact* article.
But I note that outlets report on each others' news stories, and your link may have been the original, or Chris Weigant could be reporting on the one I read, or they could have both been independent.
Mine was also before the California terrorist attack, so it was awhile ago. That article came immediately to mind when the attacks happened, and... yep, Trump's popularity surged.
To me, it drove home the point that polls are not accurate metrics, because they only take a "snapshot" in time.
Polls are largely used to bully the voters into a sense of "give up, you're not going to win anyway".
That's the real purpose of polls, and the reason lots of polls are biased or skewed.
They're an attempt to get people to change their votes, based on an emotional argument.
No need to attribute to plutocratic machinations that which can be adequately explained by logic. [...]
So Donald Trump is POTUS. You wake up in the morning, and legitimately wonder if today President Trump is going to:
Okay, wait.
Each of these would benefit the people of this nation. Directly, immediately, and clearly.
- Begin a campaign of mass deportations: Translate: more jobs for citizens - Decide we shake down Mexico for billions of dollars and divert significant steel and cement production to build a big ass wall; Translate: prevent illegal immigration, lessen some conflicts in border states, make construction jobs available - Decide to cut an entire federal agency; Translate: reduce the deficit - Decide to end a major work visa program; Translate: citizens keep their high-tech jobs, don't have the indignity of training their replacement - Simultaneously shit on the tourism industry and the Constitution by announcing an entire religion is forbidden from entering the country Translate: temporarily make us feel safe
(Also, declining tourism? Have you noticed the effect DHS has had on our tourism?)
- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that makes it harder for people in $your_industry to do business here or abroad; Counter: something that sounds bad, but that businesses abroad don't care about
- Say something cute about [minorities/women/Muslims/poor people/some other group he thinks are 'total losers"] that paints America and American businesses in a bad light; Counter: As opposed to, for example, putting Muslims in a gulag indefinitely, torturing prisoners, bringing down democratically-elected governments?
- Embarrass the country; act like running the country is a reality TV show; Counter: I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is. (Elect his wife!)
- Try to shout over, or interfere with, or shut down a media outlet that's giving him problems; Counter: baseless conjecture. "Shouting over" is something his protesters do.
- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and/or let us default on some obligations; Translate: force the government to reduce the debt
- Cause worldwide condemnation and mutiny by ordering our armed forces to kill terrorists' family members; I'll give you that one.
- Pull troops out of Japan and South Korea and try to hand them nukes to make up for it; Translate: Implement a cheaper solution that gets us out of a potential conflict area, letting us divert resources to fixing our own problems.
Regardless of what kind of job he's done running his own private sector interests, his unpredictability and volatility (a source of personal pride for him) would cause perpetual fear and chaos in the global economy.
I'm sorry, I thought the president would be concerned with the interests of Americans!
I didn't realize the welfare of non-citizens were more important that the lives of our own.
The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.
Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!
And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.
A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.
The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.
Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.
I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:
1) Another terrorist attack 2) Clinton gets indicted 3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton 4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion 5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude 6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code 7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity
I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.
If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all
...except for that pesky thing about how the results keep changing.
I'm conflicted by this action, and other recent actions in the news.
On the one hand, I'm four-square in favor of human rights, and against these sorts of laws. (So don't bother explaining the situation to me.)
On the other hand, I don't like going outside the process to overturn a result you don't like.
So for contrast and comparison, how is this different from people asking Amazon to drop Trump-branded merchandise, because they want to stop him from running for president?
How is this different from credit reporting companies putting "terrorist" on their credit reports for certain people? (As mentioned by John Oliver last Sunday.)
In all cases, it's having a powerful entity hurt someone or some group because they don't like what they stand for, and without oversight or judicial reason.
I was also a little uncomfortable with overturning proposition 8 in California. I could 'kinda justify negating it because it tended to favor *less* control of one set of people by another. It shouldn't be up to one group to dictate what another group can do, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
Is that the answer here as well?
So... I'm just a little conflicted.
Can someone lend me a machete to help me through my mental thicket?
It's curious you'd mention Pollock, because some of his works look like cans of paint randomly thrown onto a canvas. Not all of them, but some certainly do.
I agree with you completely. There's a Pollock at the museum in Omaha that looks for anything like a cat puked on the canvas.
OTOH, a famous Pollock painting will draw you in, and have a sort of fundamental emotional appeal that keeps you wondering why the painting is so engaging.
Scientific American once did an analysis of some of Polluck's paintings, along with other painters who painted in the same style but which aren't as successful as Pollock.
The analysis found that Pollock's paintings have a fractal quality that other painters (in the same style) don't have, leading to the conjecture that it's this quality that makes his paintings so engaging.
There's a Picasso at the Currier Gallery of Art which I think is awful and completely pointless, yet I can stare at Guernica all day.
And finally, if you ever go to the Detroit Institute of Art you'll find Fuseli's The Nightmare, which is completely and totally ho-hum in any reproduction, including images on the internet, but which is captivating when seen in person.
(And I was astonished when I saw my first real Rembrandt portrait (the one at Omaha). These are also ho-hum from a distance and through the internet, but to see one in person... wow!
Many people don't get why art is so pleasing. I suspect it's because they only have 2nd hand exposure, through reproductions, the internet, TV, and so on.
So in summary, I agree with you completely, but note that "art is where you find it". Not every work of every master is a masterpiece, and if you dig in the dirt you'll eventually uncover a few treasures.
So Trump attempting to ban minorities by seeking the highest office of the free world and riling up mobs until they start beating up said minorities = "He has a right to speak!"
stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
Because it's morally "the ends justify the means".
It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.
Effectively, the rule seems to be "it doesn't matter how we do it, we *have* to stop Trump. BY ANY MEANS!!!"
People shout at him during speeches. That didn't work, so they started being rowdy. That didn't work.
(Not letting him speak - how is this any different in principle to censorship?)
They dressed up in KKK robes and *that* didn't work either.
(I read about a 16yo protestor that falsely accused a rally goer of sexual assault. Willing to ruin a man's life for the cause - that's some dedication!)
I'm waiting for the assassination attempt, because "STOP TRUMP" is more important than how it gets done.
In the newspapers, they called him as clown. That didn't work, so they called him a sexist. That didn't work, so they called him a racist.
I remember reading analysis a couple of months ago, where pundits were astonished (!) that people were still supporting Trump, even after they called him a clown! (What are the Americans thinking?)
Then it was his supporters. We're all under-educated, unemployed, white, disempowered losers who are angry and want to take our country back. You don't want to be part of *that* group - do you?
That didn't work either.
Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu supports Trump.
That didn't work. Now it's backroom deals, delegate stealing, and rule changes.
Here on Slashdot, most of the political dialogue is name calling and unfounded drivel. We're the smart ones in the room, and even *we* have bought into the hatred. No one can put together a cogent political argument, simply because the other candidates don't have a clear position.
200 people control the election, and they do NOT want someone who will make the place better for the citizens.
It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets, so long as he doesn't get 1237 on the first try. So long as we can prevent *that*, we can drop him from the race and pick someone we support.
It's as if voting doesn't matter.
The ends justify the means. Stop Trump using ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
Read the subtext.
It says: "People don't think this is important, so we'll frame it as "growing". Maybe this will get them to do something."
Slashdot Mirror
You might find this interesting.
Most scientists have snorted at the idea, noting correctly that such a thing would violate observed physical laws.
The EM drive was discussed at length on other sites, and few posts were able to shine any light on the issue. Some items of note:
First, if your understanding of physics does *not* predict the Casimir effect, then you probably shouldn't be blithely dismissing the theory. The EM drive is based on a theory of physics that's more sophisticated than simple "momentum is conserved". It supposes an hypothesis that's different than what is currently accepted, but in a subtle way that is difficult to detect.
It's similar to relativity: most of our tests validate Newtonian physics, but you find relativity when you go looking for it.
Second, if you want to appeal to Noether's theorem, note that the theorem refers to smooth manifolds. If space is quantized, then Noether's theorem doesn't apply (despite being true). It's possible that Noether's theorem will break down at small scales. (If space is smooth, ie *not* quantized, then the true location of any particle is a [mathematical] real number with infinite entropy and it's action is non-computable. Not that having a non-computable universe is a problem, but...)
All in all, I get the impression that everyone commenting on the EM drive should probably keep quiet and let the experts sort it out.
I don't have any comment on either the theory or the experiment, but it's an interesting proposal.
From the Wikipedia page:
This is analyzed by Rothman and Boughn[32] who point out that the standard theory of radiation pressure is more complicated than the simplified analysis suggests.
I may be asking too much here, but I would love to know what people think of 16.04 from a real-world, practical perspective. What can you do with it that you couldn't with previous versions? What, in your opinion, has improved? Any issues?
I'd be happy to oblige, except...
If I mention one problem, people are going to say "that's not ubuntu, it's the desktop!"
If I mention another problem, people are going to say "that's an easy fix! Just go to /etc/mumble/bimple and edit fragbum.cfg file. Navigate to the "Enable Blather Frills" line and set the 1 to a 2 and that'll fix it.
(Don't believe me? Try changing the swappiness: "sudo bash -c "echo 'vm.swappiness = 15' >> /etc/sysctl.conf". What the heck is swappiness anyway, and why did I need to change it?)
If I mention a problem in any application, it's always "It's free. If you don't like it, why don't you build your *own* video editor?".
I can't just report a bug on a project website, I have to register and "become part of the team!". Ten years after, and I'm *still* getting E-mails from the GCC project from a bug I posted. ("Respond with Unsubscribe" doesn't work, because my E-mail provider changes the subject line.)
I've given up on both bug reporting and learning about programs.
Basically, when I get an error message I just cut/paste the error into the search bar, click on the stack exchange link of the *first* person to get that error, and cut/paste the answer into my system. Usually it starts "sudo apt-get ".
(I just recently fixed my emacs to not show the intro screen on startup. It took me 2 tries: firstly, I cut/paste the requisite line "(setq inhibit-splash-screen t)" only to find that I *already* have that in my config file! So then I tried adding "(setq inhibit-startup-message t)" and that didn't work either.
I had to navigate: Options -> customize emacs -> top-level customization -> environment group -> initialization and set "inhibit startup screen" to on.
All that seems reasonable if you know ahead of time where that option lives, but I defy anyone to find that option, knowing what you want to do and knowing that there's an option somewhere that does it. You have to sort through mounds of pages and options.
Oh, and the options aren't always in alphabetical order, so even if you are following the StackExchange answer, it's always 'jest a liddle bit harder' than normal.)
At first I thought this was a clever Islamophobe troll, given the general quality of the comments lately, that was going to conclude by claiming that Christians and Jews are the farmers and Muslims are the herders. [...] Then I looked up and saw your nick, so I kept reading.
I cannot for the life of me find the book that presents this theory. It might have been this one. I think this might link to the original paper somewhere.
The study had students fill out a form and then walk down a long corridor to submit the form to the researcher. Along the way they had to slide past another student moving a locker.
After sliding past, the student moving the locker mumbled "asshole" under their breath. When the student got to the end to deliver the form, their stress hormones were measured.
(The student moving the locker was in on the research, and the student delivering the paper wasn't aware of any of this.)
The study found that people whose ancestors were farmers tended to let the insult go, while people whose ancestors were herders were more apt to take offence.
The book was quite engaging, especially the sections about the hill people of Tennessee. We only hear about the Hatfields and McCoys, but there was apparently a *lot* of killing going on in those small communities. Something like 14% of *everyone* died by violence in that small area during that time.
[Will's Mom:] “Die like a man, like your brother did!” She belonged to a world so well acquainted with fatal gunshots that she had certain expectations about how they ought to be endured. Will shut his mouth, and he died.”
It puts an interesting perspective on human behaviour.
People in general are horrible evil animals.
False. The Breviks of this world are an exception to the rule. Humans evolved to cooperate. Those who didn't pull their weight were generally less fruitful in the reproductive stakes and those anti-social traits remain rare.
Actually, that's not *entirely* true either.
Humans evolved into two categories, roughly "farmers" and "herders".
Farmers don't have to worry about someone stealing the fruits of their labor. No one's going to steal their crops unless they take the time and effort to harvest them, so the farmer doesn't have to worry too much about other people.
So farmers tend to be more easy-going, more forgiving, more intelligent (geometry, long-term planning, surveying), and more cooperative. It doesn't hurt you if your neighbour succeeds, so it's OK to help out when he needs it.
Herders worry about their flock being stolen. Anyone can steal their life's work overnight, or kill them and take the herd in an afternoon. They're always on the lookout for the other herder who wants to get a leg up by easy means. Your neighbour competes with you for grazing space, so helping him diminishes your chances.
So herders tend to be confrontational, quick to anger, and violent. They present a "don't mess with me" attitude to show the other herders that they can't be taken advantage of. They have have a highly evolved sense of honour, ritualized revenge, blood feuds, and massacre entire families.
(Studies on Americans show that the "quick to anger" trait can be predicted by ancestor type, and remains even 300 years after your ancestors came to America.)
And so we have interesting situations like the blue hills of Tennessee which were settled mostly by herders. Rocky, grassy area good for herds but not especially good for farming.
You can paint certain people as "monsters", but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as that.
Some people evolved to be confrontational - that's all.
And for comparison, here's what the US did to [then] Bradley Manning.
She was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into her mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded.
Her cell was 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink. The jail had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other. Her lawyer said the guards behaved professionally, and had not tried to harass or embarrass Manning. She was allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals were taken in the cell, and she was shackled during visits. There was access to television when it was placed in the corridor, and she was allowed to keep one magazine and one book.
On January 18, 2011, after Manning had an altercation with the guards, the commander of Quantico classified her as a suicide risk. Manning said the guards had begun issuing conflicting commands, such as "turn left, don't turn left," and upbraiding her for responding to commands with "yes" instead of "aye." Shortly afterwards, she was placed on suicide watch, had her clothing and eyeglasses removed, and was required to remain in her cell 24 hours a day. The suicide watch was lifted on January 21 after a complaint from her lawyer, and the brig commander who ordered it was replaced. On March 2 she was told that her request for removal of POI status—which entailed among other things sleeping wearing only boxer shorts—had been denied. Her lawyer said Manning joked to the guards that, if she wanted to harm herself, she could do so with her underwear or her flip-flops. The comment resulted in Manning being ordered to strip naked in her cell that night and sleep without clothing. On the following morning only, Manning stood naked for inspection.
Until I read the OP article, I had always considered the US to be a fairly civilized place. Reading about the Norwegian jail and how they generally treat their prisoners, I got the distinct feeling that we, the US, are looking up from the bottom of the curve at the civilized people of the world.
I remember a photo of Richard Reid being transported to Guantanamo, who was naked and strapped immobile to a gurney, and toted around in complete view of the public while being transported (hence the photo, which I couldn't find in a quick search).
Reid was SO DANGEROUS that he couldn't be allowed clothing, shackles weren't sufficient, and had to be sent to an offshore prison.
What has become of our great nation?
Sadistic abuse. Torture. Indefinite detention, long after it has lost relevance. Giving drugs to prisoners against their will.
We force feed them to prevent them gaining release by starving to death, just to continue the abuse.
I don't expect this level of retribution from GOD, let alone fellow citizens.
I just got a rude awakening and realized: we're the bad guys.
What has become of us?
RTFA: from gills, not from fins.
Furthermore, IIRC, the developing human foetus has gills in addition to limbs.
So the gill that developed into a limb was *duplicated* in subsequent evolutionary models.
I dunno - a feature morphing into another feature by natural selection seems reasonable, but a feature duplicated sounds like a stretch.
Any evolution experts care to comment?
The Saudis said in a report in the New York Times that they might sell "up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States" if the bill passes.
Tell me again how running up a big national debt isn't a problem, and how we shouldn't be worries because "sovereign debt" isn't the same as "private debt".
(And how China won't turn around and try to blackmail us economically, because they'd be cutting their own throat in the process.)
It isn't anything like the Iranian system. Virtually anybody can run for President with only a few restrictions.
During the 2008 election, Ron Paul had 9.1% of the votes (roughly, depending on specific vote and time).
I watched with astonishment how Fox news reported the results for candidates that got less than Ron Paul, but didn't report Ron Paul's results.
During that primary, the GOP had a rule that a candidate needs to win 8 states to be considered a candidate in the convention.
They changed that rule from 5 to 8, specifically to exclude Ron Paul.
Cruz might not win 8 states, so the GOP is changing the rules to lower that number to allow Cruz to be on the ballot.
It isn't *anything like the Iranian system. We have about 200 people who control the election, while Iran has only one.
A really big difference. Big whoop.
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
In the 1950s, Hollywood had a policy of a blacklisting communist party members, denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians and so on. Those people couldn't find work for years after.
Trump seems to be the new communist party. People think nothing of petitioning stores to discontinue his products, disrupting his rallys, or publishing blatant lies. We accept this, because we feel that corporations have free speech, and so can do whatever they want.
I'm glad Facebook is standing up to this nonsense. Businesses exist by license from the government, and with that should come a measure of public good. That means neutrality in their business dealings. If Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to purchase political ads that's OK, that's what the "corporate free speech" is about.
But denying equal services?
Hurting Trump by indirect means is the new McCarthyism(*).
In other news, Scott Adams has an interesting take on the delegate cheats:
In Iran you can vote for anyone for President so long as that person has been approved by the Ayatollah Khameini. We Americans call that system a dictatorship.
Voters in America recently discovered that they live under an Iranian type of system and didn’t know it. In the primaries, voters participate in some sort of ritualistic placebo voting while party leaders select the candidates.
Remember, boys and girls, only the outcome matters.
Trump has to be stopped, by any means possible!.
(*) Stopping him personally doesn't seem to work, so I expect that soon we'll have businesses tamping down on his supporters. I couldn't find a news article about an employee fired for posting pro-Trump on their facebook page, but I expect that this will happen soon.
The median college debt is $29k. Not only that, but
You're absolutely right, and I apologize.
I slipped while editing and hit "submit" after one round of typing. I usually take a round of fact-checking, and the whole thing is run-on and wanders about the point. Yuck.
That's no excuse, but it's the reason the post is so awful.
We could have continued increasing productivity, at least into the foreseeable future.
I remember a couple of decades ago when telecommuting became possible (roughly 1990), and the IRS stepped in with rules that made it less inviting as an option. Among other things, you couldn't deduct the expenses of your home office, and you could no longer be a consultant (1099), you still had to be a regular employee (W-2). Unless, of course, you were a doctor, lawyer, or architect - those three professions were excepted from the rule.
A little later, someone pointed out that GE pays no taxes (among many other businesses), leading to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to start a business that makes a competing product.
Microsoft did its "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing to a bunch of other companies. Microsoft would "consider purchasing" your software business, sign an NDA and send in some engineers to check out the internals and otherwise determine the fitness of the purchase, choose not to purchase, then come out with a competing product 6 months later.
This happened so many times it became a meme.
(Let's not forget that Microsoft illegally forced itself on many computers. Whole companies sprang up to deal with viruses and other security exploits, while a viable alternative floundered. The first person to purchase a computer and return the Windows software got sued by Microsoft, and had to justify his actions.)
We gave the telecom companies $200 billion to bring everyone up to broadband. They took the money and did nothing - much of the country can't get internet access, Comcast can be the most hated company in America, and mobile phone service is spotty, the quality is choppy, and the communications insecure.
We give away our productivity and resources to other countries for little or no gain, we've been neglecting our roads and bridges, our electric service is outdated and increasingly unreliable, our health care is third-world-class. Our education is top-heavy with administration and mindless rules, and the cost of extended education burdens the student for the rest of their life.
(It's really hard to start a new business, make an innovative invention or do scientific research, when you're burdened with education expenses for the rest of your life, have to hold down a low-paying job just to survive because the high-paying one was outsourced to a H1B, can't get good internet service, and are forced to use Windows compatible software, and have to purchase health insurance at $5,000 per year per family member.)
====
This is in stark contrast with, for example, America of the 1920s. Reading newspaper articles of the times shows that the country was hopping with ideas. Just about everyone on the street in NYC had ideas on how to start a business, invent a new machine, or otherwise make their fortune in America.
Immigration was easy, just show up and get registered. Immigration was a self-selecting evolutionary sieve for people who were smart and could get along with other groups. You had to leave your family, community and support system behind, and learn a new language, culture, and laws. But if you could do it, you could make enough money to have the rest of your family come over to join you.
(Nowadays it takes 10 years and $30,000 for a Russian (to use an example) to emigrate to the US... if you win the immigration lottery.)
====
My point for all this is that we *could* still be having increases in productivity. If we just eased up on all the arbitrary unfairness and burden we place on the people, The electronics revolution isn't quite over yet, the internet revolution is about half over, there's a ton of room for innovation in medical sciences, and the bio revolution is just getting started. (And the start of the AI revolution might be very cl
Firstly, if he was rich enough to have a Porche (roughly $100K, depending on options), he was probably making a lot of money. A smart person could be putting that money away to become financially independent.
Trading 7 years for not having to work for the rest of your life sounds like a good trade to me.
(Assuming he was smart enough to sock away the money, assuming that it wasn't confiscated, and assuming he can tolerate Russian prison.)
Secondly, the guy who made the BlackHole exploit kit that cost businesses tens of millions of dollars got seven years, while Aaron Swartz was violating JSTOR's terms of service (and technically trespassing) and was charged with $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.
(Apples and oranges, I know. Russians don't have a "sense of humor" when it comes to robbing businesses in other countries.)
Do I have this right?
The update that downloads and installs Windows 10 over your existing Windows system is turned on by default.
The update that protects your system from a vulnerability is optional.
Microsoft never was a very "customer centric" company.
it seems like they would have a chain-of-evidence problem here
There is no problem, because the terrorist is dead. They are not prosecuting him, thus there is no defense team nit-picking their tactics.
Can you answer a question for me?
Suppose rooting around on the phone they find evidence of someone helping them plan and execute their crimes. Suppose the evidence doesn't directly indicate culpability, but strongly implies it.
Can that be used as evidence against such a 3rd party conspirator?
Would chain-of-evidence be broken, and could that be used as a defence in court?
>> I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump
I think you were reading Chris Weigant's "How Trump Could Win It All" article from December 30, 2015 in The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Thank you for the followup.
The article I read literally had a bullet-point list with some ten or twelve entries, so it wasn't your *exact* article.
But I note that outlets report on each others' news stories, and your link may have been the original, or Chris Weigant could be reporting on the one I read, or they could have both been independent.
Mine was also before the California terrorist attack, so it was awhile ago. That article came immediately to mind when the attacks happened, and... yep, Trump's popularity surged.
To me, it drove home the point that polls are not accurate metrics, because they only take a "snapshot" in time.
Polls are largely used to bully the voters into a sense of "give up, you're not going to win anyway".
That's the real purpose of polls, and the reason lots of polls are biased or skewed.
They're an attempt to get people to change their votes, based on an emotional argument.
No need to attribute to plutocratic machinations that which can be adequately explained by logic. [...]
So Donald Trump is POTUS. You wake up in the morning, and legitimately wonder if today President Trump is going to:
Okay, wait.
Each of these would benefit the people of this nation. Directly, immediately, and clearly.
- Begin a campaign of mass deportations:
Translate: more jobs for citizens
- Decide we shake down Mexico for billions of dollars and divert significant steel and cement production to build a big ass wall;
Translate: prevent illegal immigration, lessen some conflicts in border states, make construction jobs available
- Decide to cut an entire federal agency;
Translate: reduce the deficit
- Decide to end a major work visa program;
Translate: citizens keep their high-tech jobs, don't have the indignity of training their replacement
- Simultaneously shit on the tourism industry and the Constitution by announcing an entire religion is forbidden from entering the country
Translate: temporarily make us feel safe
(Also, declining tourism? Have you noticed the effect DHS has had on our tourism?)
- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that makes it harder for people in $your_industry to do business here or abroad;
Counter: something that sounds bad, but that businesses abroad don't care about
- Say something cute about [minorities/women/Muslims/poor people/some other group he thinks are 'total losers"] that paints America and American businesses in a bad light;
Counter: As opposed to, for example, putting Muslims in a gulag indefinitely, torturing prisoners, bringing down democratically-elected governments?
- Embarrass the country; act like running the country is a reality TV show;
Counter: I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is. (Elect his wife!)
- Try to shout over, or interfere with, or shut down a media outlet that's giving him problems;
Counter: baseless conjecture. "Shouting over" is something his protesters do.
- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and/or let us default on some obligations;
Translate: force the government to reduce the debt
- Cause worldwide condemnation and mutiny by ordering our armed forces to kill terrorists' family members;
I'll give you that one.
- Pull troops out of Japan and South Korea and try to hand them nukes to make up for it;
Translate: Implement a cheaper solution that gets us out of a potential conflict area, letting us divert resources to fixing our own problems.
Regardless of what kind of job he's done running his own private sector interests, his unpredictability and volatility (a source of personal pride for him) would cause perpetual fear and chaos in the global economy.
I'm sorry, I thought the president would be concerned with the interests of Americans!
I didn't realize the welfare of non-citizens were more important that the lives of our own.
>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good
Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.
Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!
And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.
A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.
The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.
Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.
I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:
1) Another terrorist attack
2) Clinton gets indicted
3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton
4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion
5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude
6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code
7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity
I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.
If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all
I'm conflicted by this action, and other recent actions in the news.
On the one hand, I'm four-square in favor of human rights, and against these sorts of laws. (So don't bother explaining the situation to me.)
On the other hand, I don't like going outside the process to overturn a result you don't like.
So for contrast and comparison, how is this different from people asking Amazon to drop Trump-branded merchandise, because they want to stop him from running for president?
How is this different from Visa and MasterCard blocking payments to Wikileaks, which seriously crippled them?
How is this different from credit reporting companies putting "terrorist" on their credit reports for certain people? (As mentioned by John Oliver last Sunday.)
In all cases, it's having a powerful entity hurt someone or some group because they don't like what they stand for, and without oversight or judicial reason.
I was also a little uncomfortable with overturning proposition 8 in California. I could 'kinda justify negating it because it tended to favor *less* control of one set of people by another. It shouldn't be up to one group to dictate what another group can do, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
Is that the answer here as well?
So... I'm just a little conflicted.
Can someone lend me a machete to help me through my mental thicket?
It's curious you'd mention Pollock, because some of his works look like cans of paint randomly thrown onto a canvas. Not all of them, but some certainly do.
I agree with you completely. There's a Pollock at the museum in Omaha that looks for anything like a cat puked on the canvas.
OTOH, a famous Pollock painting will draw you in, and have a sort of fundamental emotional appeal that keeps you wondering why the painting is so engaging.
Scientific American once did an analysis of some of Polluck's paintings, along with other painters who painted in the same style but which aren't as successful as Pollock.
The analysis found that Pollock's paintings have a fractal quality that other painters (in the same style) don't have, leading to the conjecture that it's this quality that makes his paintings so engaging.
There's a Picasso at the Currier Gallery of Art which I think is awful and completely pointless, yet I can stare at Guernica all day.
And finally, if you ever go to the Detroit Institute of Art you'll find Fuseli's The Nightmare, which is completely and totally ho-hum in any reproduction, including images on the internet, but which is captivating when seen in person.
(And I was astonished when I saw my first real Rembrandt portrait (the one at Omaha). These are also ho-hum from a distance and through the internet, but to see one in person... wow!
Many people don't get why art is so pleasing. I suspect it's because they only have 2nd hand exposure, through reproductions, the internet, TV, and so on.
So in summary, I agree with you completely, but note that "art is where you find it". Not every work of every master is a masterpiece, and if you dig in the dirt you'll eventually uncover a few treasures.
So Trump attempting to ban minorities by seeking the highest office of the free world and riling up mobs until they start beating up said minorities = "He has a right to speak!"
What the fuck?
He hasn't done any of that!
In 15 years Trump's face will be carved onto Mt Rushmore along side the other greatest presidents of all time.
In 15 years, Charleton Heston will collapse on a beach in front of a ruined statue of Trump's face, screaming:
"Oh my God. You Maniacs! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas
Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?
Because it's morally "the ends justify the means".
It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.
Effectively, the rule seems to be "it doesn't matter how we do it, we *have* to stop Trump. BY ANY MEANS!!!"
People shout at him during speeches. That didn't work, so they started being rowdy. That didn't work.
(Not letting him speak - how is this any different in principle to censorship?)
They dressed up in KKK robes and *that* didn't work either.
(I read about a 16yo protestor that falsely accused a rally goer of sexual assault. Willing to ruin a man's life for the cause - that's some dedication!)
I'm waiting for the assassination attempt, because "STOP TRUMP" is more important than how it gets done.
In the newspapers, they called him as clown. That didn't work, so they called him a sexist. That didn't work, so they called him a racist.
I remember reading analysis a couple of months ago, where pundits were astonished (!) that people were still supporting Trump, even after they called him a clown! (What are the Americans thinking?)
Then it was his supporters. We're all under-educated, unemployed, white, disempowered losers who are angry and want to take our country back. You don't want to be part of *that* group - do you?
That didn't work either.
Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu supports Trump.
That didn't work. Now it's backroom deals, delegate stealing, and rule changes.
Here on Slashdot, most of the political dialogue is name calling and unfounded drivel. We're the smart ones in the room, and even *we* have bought into the hatred. No one can put together a cogent political argument, simply because the other candidates don't have a clear position.
200 people control the election, and they do NOT want someone who will make the place better for the citizens.
It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets, so long as he doesn't get 1237 on the first try. So long as we can prevent *that*, we can drop him from the race and pick someone we support.
It's as if voting doesn't matter.
The ends justify the means. Stop Trump using ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!
the scale of abuse online continues to increase
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
Read the subtext.
It says: "People don't think this is important, so we'll frame it as "growing". Maybe this will get them to do something."