Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain
The effect of drugs in treating depression is part of the evidence used to support the neurochemical imbalance theory of depression. However, there is some debate as to whether the success of drugs in treating depression is the result, primarily, of the placebo effect.
Yes, some of this is probably the result of poor matching of patient to drug/dosage and/or over prescription by under qualified GPs.
Have a look at uMatrix. It has a very intuituve interface. It's not stopping the scripts, but rather allows you to block connections by type and domain. I find that this cuts down the amount of fiddling with NoScript/Scriptsafe that I used to do.
The vast majority of end users do not perform upgrades of even their PCs, let alone their laptops. For most, a laptop is an appliance and they are happy with it that way. More, the need to constantly upgrade components to stay useful has slowed. Decent hardware that's five years old is still useful. The top end still moves one, and there are still people who genuinely need as much speed or power as they can get, but the bulk of the market does not.
Wanting a laptop that's easy to upgrade is a feature that a vanishingly small number of people want. It's a niche market. You obviously fall into that category and so do most on this forum, myself included. That means we get a narrower range of options when they exist at all, and will end up paying a premium for them.
Swearing at Apple because you aren't their market is... odd.
Have a look at Etymotic plugs. I've used ER20s (looks like they are called 'Ety Plugs', now) at clubs and events for years. They do what they say - drop the volume without distortion. I can have conversations while wearing them that would have been a muted mess with the more usual foam earplugs. They aren't bad for long stays in server rooms, either.
If you attend loud events with any regularity, and want to _keep_ being able to enjoy those events for years to come, protect your hearing.
Caveat - no association with the company, just a satisfied customer.
That 'too much government regulation is bad' is true does not mean that government regulation is bad.
If government regulation is applied and ends up doing the "exact opposite" of what was intended, then the only solution is not "ever increasing and Draconian modifications".
On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?
It's strange. I would think that one of the few places where government unarguably has a role is in mediating the interaction of individuals, especially with respect to trade. Whether or not that's for something you think is important, or just "A FUCKING VIDEO GAME".
A company produced and sold a product that a considerable number of those who purchased it found to be substantially different to what they thought they were buying. Maybe some jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe some fooled themselves. That happens with a lot of games. This was on a different scale.
Industry self-regulation has failed to prevent this and in failing to punish it has increased the chance of it happening again. Fail for self-regulation. I'm not sure how _less_ regulation, as you seem to think more appropriate, is going to help. Bad or excessive government regulation may make things worse, but there are alternatives to 'bad' and 'excessive' despite your implication to the contrary.
Oh, and to tun your argument on it's head - THIS IS [THE] FUCKING VIDEO GAME [INDUSTRY], if it's so meaningless/trivial, why are you involved?
I don't mean to criticise, but at 6-8 hours you are pretty much in 'maintenance mode'. That's just about enough to stave off the worst of the chronic problems that arise from our sedentary lifestyles and will burn some calories, but as you note, not enough to make a significant difference to weight. For me, the exercise is more about managing my mental state and that makes it easier to maintain a healthy diet.
The University of QLD conducted a study that concluded that the WHO recommendations for exercise were about 5 times too small. Their recommendation ends up being in line with your current levels (6-8 hours).
It's hard to find time to fit more in - especially when you need a solid block of time for some exercises (esp. cardio) to be effective. Worse, as you get better at it, the same level/amount of exercise is less beneficial. You become more efficient. You then have to increase the duration or intensity. Or keep switching exercise around.
I find that I don't really see any benefit from exercise until I'm over 4 sessions of 1.5-2 hours a week. 3-4 sessions and I plateau. Less and I regress - my mental state is harder to maintain, cravings and appetite are harder to control.
I apologise if I seem to be preaching. I sympathise with your situation and struggle to 'exercise enough' myself and so may be projecting. If you can find a way to increase it (or increase the intensity), you may find that you start to see benefits beyond just burning calories.
I'm from Australia and faced a similar decision a couple of years back when similar laws were passed.
My criteria included a lack of logging of user activity. It's not enough (I believe), to find a provider in what is nominally a neutral country. Nor to find a provider that claims that they will keep your data private. If the data exists, it _will_ be available.
Private Internet Access doesn't keep user activity logs. They do keep some records, such as payment information. This has, reportedly, been tested with respect to enquiries by the FBI for example. They have a decent number of end points. They've pulled out of countries where they would have been compelled to keep records.
Caveat - no association with PIA, just a satisfied customer for the last ~2 years
It looks like IBM won wrt to the QLD Health Dept. payroll debacle and there is talk about sacking the bureaucrats involved.
However, part of the point of hiring external contractors for this sort of thing is to take advantage of their expertise. If the government failed to 'properly spec' the system, then either IBM failed to provide knowledge, guidance or push-back on a poor design. They they chose to proceed with a design they knew wouldn't work (and if they didn't know, then they deserve even greater criticism). They chose dollars of reputation and deserve some of the blame for the failure and are, rightly I think, being excluded from future consideration.
Do you believe that Google has the data and competence to analyse that data to identify patterns that can distinguish (with high confidence) the difference between a state actor and a hacking/private group?
If so, then Google has either deliberately lied or... what?
Your argument then seems to be that Google has lied to some users (either about an attack existing at all, or about the source of an attack) to ingratiate themselves with the Democrats. I'm not from the US, so I might be missing something, but that sounds ridiculous. Sure, some members of Google (maybe even most) vote a particular way, so you may be able to argue that they favour one party, and maybe their personal political leanings might inform or influence corporate policy (the "agenda" as you ominously call it) but how is _this_ evidence of that?
Sounds like confirmation bias on your part (senior Google employees/owners favour Democrats, therefore all of Google's actions are designed to help that party).
There are a number of (non-political) reasons that Google might inform users of the possibility of state-sponsored attacks. Your suggestion that this might be politically motivated is, frankly, silly.
Which is cheaper; a) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient, then publicising same and defending claims in court/media whilst continuing to use authentic ingredients OR b) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient and switching your manufacturing to the same ingredient and continuing to compete based on who has the best celebrity endorsement.
Hoping that competitors will spend money monitoring each other ignores a wealth of examples of collusion, kickbacks, price-fixing etc. and has the same sort of simplistic assumptions that a lot of 'free market will solve X' examples exhibit. Too much regulation is bad. That doesn't mean regulation is bad.
I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).
There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed to be less about which was the better candidate, and who was the least-worst.
However, the original statement that I object to is that the people who voted for Trump and against Clinton did so because she was a woman. No doubt some did. The majority who voted against her did so because the value they attach to certain things is a little different to the same values you place on those same things. Maybe that's the result of the monkey-brain cutting members of the tribe some slack, and forgiving in our 'friends' the flaws we'll abhor in those outside the tribe. Maybe it's just that Person A has to reluctantly accept a lying, corrupt, narcissist who barely represents their views, because the other party is also a lying, corrupt narcissist but is even further from representing their views.
Just as with Brexit, there's a disjoint in analysis that is missing a significant disaffection in the voting public. We're seeing similar things, here, in voting behaviour although it's more diffuse as a result of our preferential voting and different party dynamic.
If you want to understand what is going on, to actually understand what is driving a large enough portion of the population that it's distorting polls then you need to stop with the mischaracterisation and easy name-calling.
Some Trump voters might well be sexist. That may even have influenced their voting choice. But far, far more voted that way for reasons the GP glosses over with a handwave and implied sexism.
No, _you_ don't. You use a service owned and operated by someone else with goals and ambitions that intersect yours only accidentally.
people can directly ask the candidates whatever they want
Sure they can. Just as before Twitter and Facebook, there was email, snail mail and good old face-to-face campaigning. Your Twitter post will get exactly as much time and attention as each of those got - if you are lucky a junior staff member might reply, but more likely you'll get canned responses.
and get their answers
How is the message a politician posts on Facebook any less curated and sanitised than the article that is written for the front page of a major newspaper? Because it comes from the 'source'? You'll get answers only if your questions fit the narrative that the candidate wants to promote. Anything else will be ignored. you can try calling them out on that, but you are one tiny voice amongst millions who are just going to see their favourite politician saying something, and a whole bunch of people approving of it. Go ahead and try to dissent. Try to question. Try to hold them to answer.
Social media is designed to create groups and communities. It's an echo chamber, with stories and articles that people like being recommended, linked to or sent on to people they think will also like them. Straight away you have a massive selection bias in the information that you are seeing. Nothing about it promotes objectivity or rigour. It's urban myths and chain letter levels of information quality - and _this_ is what you offer to replace the bias of mainstream media? Social media is _easy_. It's _comfortable_. You are unlikely to see anything that challenges your world-view. You and your tribe or team or whatever just keep patting each other on the back and congratulating yourselves on how together you all are.
By framing Trump's win as being the result of sexism you fail to acknowledge that many people chose not to vote for Clinton for various flaws, completely unrelated to her gender. Without some convincing proof otherwise, I'd assume that the number of people who voted for Trump _because_ Clinton was female is vanishingly small. The number for whom it was a consideration may be higher, but is still dwarfed by the number of people who rejected Clinton for her ties with banks and big business, 'pay for play' and accusations of corruption, scandals relating to mishandling of classified material, feeling that the Democrat's no longer represented the interests of those who once voted for them and/or any of dozens of other reasons that came up during the campaign.
The degree to which any of those has merit can be debated. What can not is that these had a marked impact on various groups of voters that may previously have voted for a Democrat candidate.
I've tried variations on "correlation race poverty crime" with "eight" "8 times" etc. to see if I could find where you were sourcing your claim, but am drawing a blank. Rather than continue to make an ass of myself, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link or citation?
If 'they' weren't disproportionately from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, 'they' wouldn't commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
Crime correlates pretty well with poverty and wealth disparity. Even if you argue that the criminal behaviour is part of what keeps them in poverty, how do you break the cycle? It's certainly a reasonable argument to insist that people are responsible for their own actions, but that's kind of simplistic - not everyone has equal access to all possible choices and of the options that are available, people from different backgrounds are going to experience different 'costs'.
Don't get me wrong, I think that excusing criminal behaviour by blaming 'society' or conditions does a great disservice to the majority of people who experience those same conditions and who choose, repeatedly, to live useful, law-abiding lives. I also think its grossly irresponsible to see people who have had greater difficulties than most and who have fewer resources and do nothing except point the finger. Some combination of personal _and_ social responsibility is needed - neither, alone, is as likely to succeed.
I see the '50TB' number thrown about a lot, but the original FBI 'Criminal Complaint' says;
7. Among the classified documents located thus far, six of them appear to have been obtained from sensitive intelligence
and goes on to talk about the markings on the documents that identify them as belonging to the government. The next part that seems interesting
10. During execution of the warrants, investigators located property of the United States with an aggregate value in well excess of $1000, which MARTIN had stolen.
And then talks a bit about the $1000+ worth of stolen goods.
I'm genuinely curious. Is $1000 a magic number that makes this a certain class of crime? I've seen it suggested that the 50TB represents the total capacity of the storage he had taken, not the volume of the data. Are you aware of any further information about what has actually been taken?
Just from the Complaint, it could just as well be someone who has been in the job long enough that they have been careless about what work they take home, and who has been 'salvaging' old kit from work. Or he really could have 50TB of classified data and just been profoundly arrogant about being caught - but I'd like some more evidence of it before I make up my mind.
Is it a lie when people want/expect you to actually do it?
Yes. Especially when you are assuming that people want/expect you to do it. Maybe you are amazingly accurate at reading the situation and really do know that that is what people want/expect, but are you always going to be right?
Lying isn't black and white
Yes it is, but the justifications for it are endless.
You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for
Good communication certainly involves trying to understand how the other parties communicate, but there's a difference between 'lossy compression' and a re-interpretation of the original material that conveys what you think is the essential truth and what you hope is an accurate assumption about the other parties desires, biases and communication style.
get my point or question out and paid attention to
It sounds as though you've had difficulty in communicating effectively and have 'solved' that by making assumptions about what people want and altering details to fit. While a summary will usually have less information than a longer work, there are ways to summarise that don't require reinvention.
You are then lying only when you know what information a person is looking for and if they would care about the inaccuracy of the statement.
No. You know what you are doing is lying. You seem to think that lying is 'wrong' but you also seem to believe that what you are doing is necessary and harmless. That's your call, but that is a reason or justification for lying, not something that allows you to redefine what lying is.
Ford recognised that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars, they'd both be better off.
The companies offshoring their labour aren't selling into the Indian market (at least not primarily). They are selling into the much more lucrative US market. That market is lucrative, in part, because of the strong middle-class which, in turn, is supported by higher wages (to grossly over simplify).
The offshoring company is essentially exploiting _other_ companies who hire locally and hence have to pay a higher wage. They are the ones who are sustaining the market that the offshoring company wants to sell to, but isn't, themselves, prepared to sustain.
It takes a remarkably short-sighted view point as well as a nearly rabid 'profit above all else' attitude to see large scale offshoring as anything other than detrimental.
Categorisation is really useful when you want to deal with aggregates rather than individual instances, but the catch is that you need to remember that you are making some assumptions.
You are correct in saying that there are two genders - for certain values of what 'gender' means. Gender is more than just a categorisation of biological sex - it also refers to social structures and identities (and yes, I'm aware that those social structures and identities grow out of and are closely linked with the biological). Even when considering the purely biological meaning, while most individuals in a population may be well defined as either male or female, not all will be.
You plead 'reality', but reality is not as binary as our approximations sometimes imply. Ignoring edge cases and exceptions because they form a small percentage of the group in question might be convenient, but when those exceptions are individuals who have to deal with social stigmas, discrimination or simply the unconscious assumptions that your post typifies perhaps convenience can bow to courtesy without it being labelled 'political correctness'.
This is not a new phenomenon. Historically, several cultures have had more than two genders with well defined social roles and positions.
You are reminding someone that there exists an approximation (that's useful and fits large samples of data quite well, but is still an approximation) and dismiss trying to discuss and deal with the exceptions, edge cases or less well-defined individuals as 'political correctness'. Yes, you are technically correct, but your post adds nothing. If you have a criticism about the position being taken by the GP, then make it.
Some of the best people I've known in life have been believers
Likewise - and from a similar range of backgrounds. However, to the extent that their beliefs contain things I find abhorrent, I see their 'native' generosity as being constrained by religion, not the result of it. Certainly many of those I know who started as believers and came to reject the beliefs they were raised on did so from the dissonance between principles and expression, internal inconsistencies or an internal growth that left the original belief system behind.
More, some of the most dangerous and damaging people I have met have been fervent believers. Some have used their belief system to justify behaviour that is essentially self-serving. Others, from genuine belief that what they were doing was 'right', have caused more harm than the first group.
If you should encounter a really horrible person online, say on a forum or Twitter or something, chances are very good that they're atheists
There are certainly a lot of nasty, self-important people who are atheists. Just as there are plenty who are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu... I suspect a degree of confirmation bias in your assertion.
but because being horrible almost requires non-belief
As T.S. Eliot observed “Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” Belief can be, and often is, used to justify action that would otherwise be clearly horrible.
they tend to stick out because they tend to make a spectacle of themselves
As do your online atheists, above. How can you tell an atheist who doesn't loudly announce it at every opportunity?
but belief seems to have the properties of a good ingredient.
Unquestioning belief can be blind. Unchallenged belief is limiting. Unexamined belief can be stagnating. In as much as it's easier to co-operate with people with whom you share a common belief, belief builds communities - but it's a short-cut to really understanding and acceptance of an individual. As you say, all too often it becomes tribalism by another name. Just because some people can be amazing and also believe says little about the worth of belief.
It's almost as if the part that makes you better is the process, more than the specifics of any faith tradition.
or doesn't commending 9/11 with a call to complete it by hitting the White House and Capitol Hill strike you as unacceptable?
I disagree with both the commendation and the call to further violence, but it is only when we disagree with what someone is saying that we are tested on our commitment to the principle of the free exchange of information and ideas. To be clear, I do not wish to see statements, such as above, censored or blocked (to paraphrase Hall wrt Voltaire).
Let them speak. If the idea has no merit, it will have as much impact as any other rant or rave of the fringe lunatics. If, on the other hand, there is some group of people who might be swayed by the ideas, then the problem doesn't lie with the message but with the circumstances that have created such a group or allowed them to arise. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.
A large number (most?) of people who buy a computer are never going to repair or upgrade it. Of those machines that are opened up, a large number will be repaired or upgraded by a technician or support staff and even then, the vast majority are only going to have RAM increased. Gamers and people with a technical bent like to be able to access their machines, but for almost everyone else, they are appliances and accessibility just adds space and cost.
I'd also love to see something between the mini and the Pro in a tech-friendly format, but both of us belong to a very small market sector and one that Apple has no interest in.
Macs used to remain useful for longer than Windows PCs. Part of that was OSX, part of it was different users and use cases. AIOs made no sense in the PC world, where you'd need to be throwing the whole thing away every couple of years, rather than upgrading components. It was a better proposition on the Mac side of things. These days, however, a 5 year old mid-level PC is still useful. A Windows/PC AIO isn't as bad a choice as once it was. Microsoft can make decent hardware, but suffers from coming late to markets with products that are as good as _but_no_better_ than those already in the field. If it can avoid playing catch-up with Apple and the iMac a Microsoft AIO isn't necessarily a bad concept.
The use of the term 'cop' or 'copper' to refer to the police has a number of possible roots. From the Latin 'capere' meaning to catch, perhaps. Maybe from the Dutch 'kapen'. From the French or even Anglo Saxon. There's evidence of the use of the modern form 'cop' meaning to catch in the 1700s and the use of 'copper' as 'one who catches' about the same time. Suggestions that the term has to do with copper buttons or helmets, or that a copper-a-day was the wage of a policeman are fanciful, as are backronyms like 'Constable on Patrol' and 'Civilian Officer of the Peace'.
The word 'civilian' has meant different things at different times. The link Bruce66423 so thoughtfully provides gives a number of these, and being the OED, provides a history of examples of usage. I'm not sure what you mean by 'revisionist history'? 'Civilian' has variously meant someone who practices civil law, someone who is moral without being christian, someone who is not in the military and someone who is not in a specified professional group. That last, the definition you are objecting to, has examples that are all informal. I consider it a stylistic fault for an article to use a police/civilian split, but it's not incorrect. I think that in an environment of increased militisation of police that it's tasteless, but it's still not incorrect.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with insisting that the police are under 'civil law'. Certainly in my country (Australia) police have certain rights that differ from non-police as well as certain restrictions and obligations. I think the militarisation of police is a concern; I think that movements away from Peel's 'policing by consent' towards increased use of force, decreased transparency etc. are concerning. To the degree that you seem to be saying something similar, I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain
The effect of drugs in treating depression is part of the evidence used to support the neurochemical imbalance theory of depression. However, there is some debate as to whether the success of drugs in treating depression is the result, primarily, of the placebo effect.
Yes, some of this is probably the result of poor matching of patient to drug/dosage and/or over prescription by under qualified GPs.
Have a look at uMatrix. It has a very intuituve interface. It's not stopping the scripts, but rather allows you to block connections by type and domain. I find that this cuts down the amount of fiddling with NoScript/Scriptsafe that I used to do.
The vast majority of end users do not perform upgrades of even their PCs, let alone their laptops. For most, a laptop is an appliance and they are happy with it that way. More, the need to constantly upgrade components to stay useful has slowed. Decent hardware that's five years old is still useful. The top end still moves one, and there are still people who genuinely need as much speed or power as they can get, but the bulk of the market does not.
Wanting a laptop that's easy to upgrade is a feature that a vanishingly small number of people want. It's a niche market. You obviously fall into that category and so do most on this forum, myself included. That means we get a narrower range of options when they exist at all, and will end up paying a premium for them.
Swearing at Apple because you aren't their market is ... odd.
Have a look at Etymotic plugs. I've used ER20s (looks like they are called 'Ety Plugs', now) at clubs and events for years. They do what they say - drop the volume without distortion. I can have conversations while wearing them that would have been a muted mess with the more usual foam earplugs. They aren't bad for long stays in server rooms, either.
If you attend loud events with any regularity, and want to _keep_ being able to enjoy those events for years to come, protect your hearing.
Caveat - no association with the company, just a satisfied customer.
That 'too much government regulation is bad' is true does not mean that government regulation is bad.
If government regulation is applied and ends up doing the "exact opposite" of what was intended, then the only solution is not "ever increasing and Draconian modifications".
On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?
It's strange. I would think that one of the few places where government unarguably has a role is in mediating the interaction of individuals, especially with respect to trade. Whether or not that's for something you think is important, or just "A FUCKING VIDEO GAME".
A company produced and sold a product that a considerable number of those who purchased it found to be substantially different to what they thought they were buying. Maybe some jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe some fooled themselves. That happens with a lot of games. This was on a different scale.
Industry self-regulation has failed to prevent this and in failing to punish it has increased the chance of it happening again. Fail for self-regulation. I'm not sure how _less_ regulation, as you seem to think more appropriate, is going to help. Bad or excessive government regulation may make things worse, but there are alternatives to 'bad' and 'excessive' despite your implication to the contrary.
Oh, and to tun your argument on it's head - THIS IS [THE] FUCKING VIDEO GAME [INDUSTRY], if it's so meaningless/trivial, why are you involved?
I don't mean to criticise, but at 6-8 hours you are pretty much in 'maintenance mode'. That's just about enough to stave off the worst of the chronic problems that arise from our sedentary lifestyles and will burn some calories, but as you note, not enough to make a significant difference to weight. For me, the exercise is more about managing my mental state and that makes it easier to maintain a healthy diet.
The University of QLD conducted a study that concluded that the WHO recommendations for exercise were about 5 times too small. Their recommendation ends up being in line with your current levels (6-8 hours).
It's hard to find time to fit more in - especially when you need a solid block of time for some exercises (esp. cardio) to be effective. Worse, as you get better at it, the same level/amount of exercise is less beneficial. You become more efficient. You then have to increase the duration or intensity. Or keep switching exercise around.
I find that I don't really see any benefit from exercise until I'm over 4 sessions of 1.5-2 hours a week. 3-4 sessions and I plateau. Less and I regress - my mental state is harder to maintain, cravings and appetite are harder to control.
I apologise if I seem to be preaching. I sympathise with your situation and struggle to 'exercise enough' myself and so may be projecting. If you can find a way to increase it (or increase the intensity), you may find that you start to see benefits beyond just burning calories.
The problem with this is that you will no longer get legitimate invitations in your calendar. Don't get me wrong, the only other ways are even worse.
Here's the only three solutions I can find.
I'm from Australia and faced a similar decision a couple of years back when similar laws were passed.
My criteria included a lack of logging of user activity. It's not enough (I believe), to find a provider in what is nominally a neutral country. Nor to find a provider that claims that they will keep your data private. If the data exists, it _will_ be available.
Private Internet Access doesn't keep user activity logs. They do keep some records, such as payment information. This has, reportedly, been tested with respect to enquiries by the FBI for example. They have a decent number of end points. They've pulled out of countries where they would have been compelled to keep records.
Caveat - no association with PIA, just a satisfied customer for the last ~2 years
It looks like IBM won wrt to the QLD Health Dept. payroll debacle and there is talk about sacking the bureaucrats involved.
However, part of the point of hiring external contractors for this sort of thing is to take advantage of their expertise. If the government failed to 'properly spec' the system, then either IBM failed to provide knowledge, guidance or push-back on a poor design. They they chose to proceed with a design they knew wouldn't work (and if they didn't know, then they deserve even greater criticism). They chose dollars of reputation and deserve some of the blame for the failure and are, rightly I think, being excluded from future consideration.
Looks like they were paid $9.6 million for the job
source
Do you believe that Google has the data and competence to analyse that data to identify patterns that can distinguish (with high confidence) the difference between a state actor and a hacking/private group?
If so, then Google has either deliberately lied or ... what?
Your argument then seems to be that Google has lied to some users (either about an attack existing at all, or about the source of an attack) to ingratiate themselves with the Democrats. I'm not from the US, so I might be missing something, but that sounds ridiculous. Sure, some members of Google (maybe even most) vote a particular way, so you may be able to argue that they favour one party, and maybe their personal political leanings might inform or influence corporate policy (the "agenda" as you ominously call it) but how is _this_ evidence of that?
Sounds like confirmation bias on your part (senior Google employees/owners favour Democrats, therefore all of Google's actions are designed to help that party).
There are a number of (non-political) reasons that Google might inform users of the possibility of state-sponsored attacks. Your suggestion that this might be politically motivated is, frankly, silly.
Which is cheaper;
a) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient, then publicising same and defending claims in court/media whilst continuing to use authentic ingredients
OR
b) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient and switching your manufacturing to the same ingredient and continuing to compete based on who has the best celebrity endorsement.
Hoping that competitors will spend money monitoring each other ignores a wealth of examples of collusion, kickbacks, price-fixing etc. and has the same sort of simplistic assumptions that a lot of 'free market will solve X' examples exhibit. Too much regulation is bad. That doesn't mean regulation is bad.
I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).
There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed to be less about which was the better candidate, and who was the least-worst.
However, the original statement that I object to is that the people who voted for Trump and against Clinton did so because she was a woman. No doubt some did. The majority who voted against her did so because the value they attach to certain things is a little different to the same values you place on those same things. Maybe that's the result of the monkey-brain cutting members of the tribe some slack, and forgiving in our 'friends' the flaws we'll abhor in those outside the tribe. Maybe it's just that Person A has to reluctantly accept a lying, corrupt, narcissist who barely represents their views, because the other party is also a lying, corrupt narcissist but is even further from representing their views.
Just as with Brexit, there's a disjoint in analysis that is missing a significant disaffection in the voting public. We're seeing similar things, here, in voting behaviour although it's more diffuse as a result of our preferential voting and different party dynamic.
If you want to understand what is going on, to actually understand what is driving a large enough portion of the population that it's distorting polls then you need to stop with the mischaracterisation and easy name-calling.
Some Trump voters might well be sexist. That may even have influenced their voting choice. But far, far more voted that way for reasons the GP glosses over with a handwave and implied sexism.
We have Twitter and Facebook
No, _you_ don't. You use a service owned and operated by someone else with goals and ambitions that intersect yours only accidentally.
people can directly ask the candidates whatever they want
Sure they can. Just as before Twitter and Facebook, there was email, snail mail and good old face-to-face campaigning. Your Twitter post will get exactly as much time and attention as each of those got - if you are lucky a junior staff member might reply, but more likely you'll get canned responses.
and get their answers
How is the message a politician posts on Facebook any less curated and sanitised than the article that is written for the front page of a major newspaper? Because it comes from the 'source'? You'll get answers only if your questions fit the narrative that the candidate wants to promote. Anything else will be ignored. you can try calling them out on that, but you are one tiny voice amongst millions who are just going to see their favourite politician saying something, and a whole bunch of people approving of it. Go ahead and try to dissent. Try to question. Try to hold them to answer.
Social media is designed to create groups and communities. It's an echo chamber, with stories and articles that people like being recommended, linked to or sent on to people they think will also like them. Straight away you have a massive selection bias in the information that you are seeing. Nothing about it promotes objectivity or rigour. It's urban myths and chain letter levels of information quality - and _this_ is what you offer to replace the bias of mainstream media? Social media is _easy_. It's _comfortable_. You are unlikely to see anything that challenges your world-view. You and your tribe or team or whatever just keep patting each other on the back and congratulating yourselves on how together you all are.
By framing Trump's win as being the result of sexism you fail to acknowledge that many people chose not to vote for Clinton for various flaws, completely unrelated to her gender. Without some convincing proof otherwise, I'd assume that the number of people who voted for Trump _because_ Clinton was female is vanishingly small. The number for whom it was a consideration may be higher, but is still dwarfed by the number of people who rejected Clinton for her ties with banks and big business, 'pay for play' and accusations of corruption, scandals relating to mishandling of classified material, feeling that the Democrat's no longer represented the interests of those who once voted for them and/or any of dozens of other reasons that came up during the campaign.
The degree to which any of those has merit can be debated. What can not is that these had a marked impact on various groups of voters that may previously have voted for a Democrat candidate.
Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012
Second link from the google search for "correlation race poverty crime".
Or, from wikipedia entry Race and crime in the United States.
I've tried variations on "correlation race poverty crime" with "eight" "8 times" etc. to see if I could find where you were sourcing your claim, but am drawing a blank. Rather than continue to make an ass of myself, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link or citation?
Assuming you aren't trolling;
If 'they' weren't disproportionately from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, 'they' wouldn't commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
Crime correlates pretty well with poverty and wealth disparity. Even if you argue that the criminal behaviour is part of what keeps them in poverty, how do you break the cycle? It's certainly a reasonable argument to insist that people are responsible for their own actions, but that's kind of simplistic - not everyone has equal access to all possible choices and of the options that are available, people from different backgrounds are going to experience different 'costs'.
Don't get me wrong, I think that excusing criminal behaviour by blaming 'society' or conditions does a great disservice to the majority of people who experience those same conditions and who choose, repeatedly, to live useful, law-abiding lives. I also think its grossly irresponsible to see people who have had greater difficulties than most and who have fewer resources and do nothing except point the finger. Some combination of personal _and_ social responsibility is needed - neither, alone, is as likely to succeed.
I see the '50TB' number thrown about a lot, but the original FBI 'Criminal Complaint' says;
7. Among the classified documents located thus far, six of them appear to have been obtained from sensitive intelligence
and goes on to talk about the markings on the documents that identify them as belonging to the government. The next part that seems interesting
10. During execution of the warrants, investigators located property of the United States with an aggregate value in well excess of $1000, which MARTIN had stolen.
And then talks a bit about the $1000+ worth of stolen goods.
I'm genuinely curious. Is $1000 a magic number that makes this a certain class of crime? I've seen it suggested that the 50TB represents the total capacity of the storage he had taken, not the volume of the data. Are you aware of any further information about what has actually been taken?
Just from the Complaint, it could just as well be someone who has been in the job long enough that they have been careless about what work they take home, and who has been 'salvaging' old kit from work. Or he really could have 50TB of classified data and just been profoundly arrogant about being caught - but I'd like some more evidence of it before I make up my mind.
(quotes from http://www.documentcloud.org/d...; linked from the wikipedia entry. Caveat, I haven't spent much time digging)
Is it a lie when people want/expect you to actually do it?
Yes. Especially when you are assuming that people want/expect you to do it. Maybe you are amazingly accurate at reading the situation and really do know that that is what people want/expect, but are you always going to be right?
Lying isn't black and white
Yes it is, but the justifications for it are endless.
You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for
Good communication certainly involves trying to understand how the other parties communicate, but there's a difference between 'lossy compression' and a re-interpretation of the original material that conveys what you think is the essential truth and what you hope is an accurate assumption about the other parties desires, biases and communication style.
get my point or question out and paid attention to
It sounds as though you've had difficulty in communicating effectively and have 'solved' that by making assumptions about what people want and altering details to fit. While a summary will usually have less information than a longer work, there are ways to summarise that don't require reinvention.
You are then lying only when you know what information a person is looking for and if they would care about the inaccuracy of the statement.
No. You know what you are doing is lying. You seem to think that lying is 'wrong' but you also seem to believe that what you are doing is necessary and harmless. That's your call, but that is a reason or justification for lying, not something that allows you to redefine what lying is.
Ford recognised that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars, they'd both be better off.
The companies offshoring their labour aren't selling into the Indian market (at least not primarily). They are selling into the much more lucrative US market. That market is lucrative, in part, because of the strong middle-class which, in turn, is supported by higher wages (to grossly over simplify).
The offshoring company is essentially exploiting _other_ companies who hire locally and hence have to pay a higher wage. They are the ones who are sustaining the market that the offshoring company wants to sell to, but isn't, themselves, prepared to sustain.
It takes a remarkably short-sighted view point as well as a nearly rabid 'profit above all else' attitude to see large scale offshoring as anything other than detrimental.
Categorisation is really useful when you want to deal with aggregates rather than individual instances, but the catch is that you need to remember that you are making some assumptions.
You are correct in saying that there are two genders - for certain values of what 'gender' means. Gender is more than just a categorisation of biological sex - it also refers to social structures and identities (and yes, I'm aware that those social structures and identities grow out of and are closely linked with the biological). Even when considering the purely biological meaning, while most individuals in a population may be well defined as either male or female, not all will be.
You plead 'reality', but reality is not as binary as our approximations sometimes imply. Ignoring edge cases and exceptions because they form a small percentage of the group in question might be convenient, but when those exceptions are individuals who have to deal with social stigmas, discrimination or simply the unconscious assumptions that your post typifies perhaps convenience can bow to courtesy without it being labelled 'political correctness'.
This is not a new phenomenon. Historically, several cultures have had more than two genders with well defined social roles and positions.
You are reminding someone that there exists an approximation (that's useful and fits large samples of data quite well, but is still an approximation) and dismiss trying to discuss and deal with the exceptions, edge cases or less well-defined individuals as 'political correctness'. Yes, you are technically correct, but your post adds nothing. If you have a criticism about the position being taken by the GP, then make it.
Some of the best people I've known in life have been believers
Likewise - and from a similar range of backgrounds. However, to the extent that their beliefs contain things I find abhorrent, I see their 'native' generosity as being constrained by religion, not the result of it. Certainly many of those I know who started as believers and came to reject the beliefs they were raised on did so from the dissonance between principles and expression, internal inconsistencies or an internal growth that left the original belief system behind.
More, some of the most dangerous and damaging people I have met have been fervent believers. Some have used their belief system to justify behaviour that is essentially self-serving. Others, from genuine belief that what they were doing was 'right', have caused more harm than the first group.
If you should encounter a really horrible person online, say on a forum or Twitter or something, chances are very good that they're atheists
There are certainly a lot of nasty, self-important people who are atheists. Just as there are plenty who are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu ... I suspect a degree of confirmation bias in your assertion.
but because being horrible almost requires non-belief
As T.S. Eliot observed “Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” Belief can be, and often is, used to justify action that would otherwise be clearly horrible.
they tend to stick out because they tend to make a spectacle of themselves
As do your online atheists, above. How can you tell an atheist who doesn't loudly announce it at every opportunity?
but belief seems to have the properties of a good ingredient.
Unquestioning belief can be blind. Unchallenged belief is limiting. Unexamined belief can be stagnating. In as much as it's easier to co-operate with people with whom you share a common belief, belief builds communities - but it's a short-cut to really understanding and acceptance of an individual. As you say, all too often it becomes tribalism by another name. Just because some people can be amazing and also believe says little about the worth of belief.
It's almost as if the part that makes you better is the process, more than the specifics of any faith tradition.
With this I am in total agreement.
or doesn't commending 9/11 with a call to complete it by hitting the White House and Capitol Hill strike you as unacceptable?
I disagree with both the commendation and the call to further violence, but it is only when we disagree with what someone is saying that we are tested on our commitment to the principle of the free exchange of information and ideas. To be clear, I do not wish to see statements, such as above, censored or blocked (to paraphrase Hall wrt Voltaire).
Let them speak. If the idea has no merit, it will have as much impact as any other rant or rave of the fringe lunatics. If, on the other hand, there is some group of people who might be swayed by the ideas, then the problem doesn't lie with the message but with the circumstances that have created such a group or allowed them to arise. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.
A large number (most?) of people who buy a computer are never going to repair or upgrade it. Of those machines that are opened up, a large number will be repaired or upgraded by a technician or support staff and even then, the vast majority are only going to have RAM increased. Gamers and people with a technical bent like to be able to access their machines, but for almost everyone else, they are appliances and accessibility just adds space and cost.
I'd also love to see something between the mini and the Pro in a tech-friendly format, but both of us belong to a very small market sector and one that Apple has no interest in.
Macs used to remain useful for longer than Windows PCs. Part of that was OSX, part of it was different users and use cases. AIOs made no sense in the PC world, where you'd need to be throwing the whole thing away every couple of years, rather than upgrading components. It was a better proposition on the Mac side of things. These days, however, a 5 year old mid-level PC is still useful. A Windows/PC AIO isn't as bad a choice as once it was. Microsoft can make decent hardware, but suffers from coming late to markets with products that are as good as _but_no_better_ than those already in the field. If it can avoid playing catch-up with Apple and the iMac a Microsoft AIO isn't necessarily a bad concept.
Lot's of 'ifs'.
The use of the term 'cop' or 'copper' to refer to the police has a number of possible roots. From the Latin 'capere' meaning to catch, perhaps. Maybe from the Dutch 'kapen'. From the French or even Anglo Saxon. There's evidence of the use of the modern form 'cop' meaning to catch in the 1700s and the use of 'copper' as 'one who catches' about the same time. Suggestions that the term has to do with copper buttons or helmets, or that a copper-a-day was the wage of a policeman are fanciful, as are backronyms like 'Constable on Patrol' and 'Civilian Officer of the Peace'.
The word 'civilian' has meant different things at different times. The link Bruce66423 so thoughtfully provides gives a number of these, and being the OED, provides a history of examples of usage. I'm not sure what you mean by 'revisionist history'? 'Civilian' has variously meant someone who practices civil law, someone who is moral without being christian, someone who is not in the military and someone who is not in a specified professional group. That last, the definition you are objecting to, has examples that are all informal. I consider it a stylistic fault for an article to use a police/civilian split, but it's not incorrect. I think that in an environment of increased militisation of police that it's tasteless, but it's still not incorrect.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with insisting that the police are under 'civil law'. Certainly in my country (Australia) police have certain rights that differ from non-police as well as certain restrictions and obligations. I think the militarisation of police is a concern; I think that movements away from Peel's 'policing by consent' towards increased use of force, decreased transparency etc. are concerning. To the degree that you seem to be saying something similar, I agree.