There's a fair number of dumb people who are really bad. They tend to lack the competence to do really inhumane things on anything other than small scale.
I've dealt with people two sigmas apart with no problems. I often deal with people three sigmas down.
My attitude is that I'm smart, so I should be able to figure out how to communicate. It took me a long time to get the hang of it, but I figured it out pretty well. When trying to convince people less intelligent than me, I look for reasons they'll understand. I'm pretty good at it.
I think I'd do better without the ASD, but I seem do get by.
If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180?
If greater strength is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve to have more efficient, or at least bigger, muscles? Or, if resistance to injury and disease is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve more of it (as it is, we're really really good at it, by animal standards).
The current human genome is demonstrably less efficient than it could be, because evolution doesn't use good optimization algorithms that converge fast. Given that, just being qualitatively superior in a trait to all other animals may wind up as enough.
It was a result of extraordinary intelligence. Einstein didn't get his Nobel Prize for Special Relativity, but instead for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. In 1905, he published on Special Relativity, the mechanism behind the photoelectric effect, and how Brownian motion worked, three major breakthroughs. Later on, he published on General Relativity. That's four really major breakthroughs in physics, and I might have missed something. He wasn't a one-hit wonder.
It wasn't just basic very high intelligence. Henri Poincare had pretty much worked out the mathematics of Special Relativity earlier, but Poincare didn't understand their implications, which were too radical for him to consider. Einstein realized that the mathematics showed that there is no such thing as absolute space, absolute time, and that "at the same time" is meaningless applied to events at different locations. Relativity remained extremely controversial for a long time.
His contributions to the later development of quantum physics were of another sort. He could never accept the Uncertainty Principal, so he came up with really ingenious arguments against it, which forced the people who were right about quantum mechanics to nail everything down, and therefore helped confirm the Principal.
In what way was the intellectual class harming the middle and working classes? I'd say it was the upper class that was doing it, and that's not the intellectual class. Intellectuals, after the 60s, were reluctant to embark on foreign adventurism.
The mass of journalists supporting Clinton in 2016 was because they were aware of what would happen with the alternative. Journalists have always tended to be left-wing (they are exposed to more reality than most people), and media owners tend to be hard right-wing, so it balances out.
Pershing was a good general in some respects, but I don't see greatness. He did indeed insist on the American Expeditionary Force acting as a whole, which delayed its effectiveness to the very end of the war. It seems to me that the largest effect of the US entry on the war was presenting Germany with a deadline: win in 1918 or lose, because in 1919 the US was going to have pretty much its full strength in the war.
The main rap against the Entente leadership was that the Western Front was a bloody stalemate for years. The assumption is that they should have thought of a way to avoid that. However, in a century of speculating, nobody's come up with a way to do it. Some people have named leaders, like Napoleon and the Australian commander Monash, who they thought could have broken through. Faced with similar situations, Napoleon did no better. Monash was an excellent commander, applying the offensive tactics of the day superbly, but he couldn't come up with a better solution.
The Germans are often lauded for their Stosstruppen tactics, but those weren't all that much advanced over contemporary British and French tactics. The major difference is that the Stosstruppen were attacking defensive systems far less sophisticated than what the Germans had. Even then, the Germans couldn't accomplish anything decisive.
Late war offensive tactics were perfectly adequate to coordinate infantry and artillery to take a trench line. When attacking Germans, behind that would be another trench line. If the infantry struggled forward to assault it, timing the artillery support was largely guesswork. There was no way to break through German lines without halfway decent portable radios. Even late in 1918, they were keeping a continuous line, although it was falling back pretty rapidly.
She got more primary votes than Sanders, and more delegates. Sanders did better in caucus states, where you'd expect the party to have greater influence. Not to mention there was no such thing as "her primary" - there are fifty states and a few other territories, all of which had some method of picking delegates.
Now it appears that even the Obama FBI and the Obama DOJ were pulling for Hillary.
Nope. Comey's October sortaleak about Clinton's emails hurt her in the polls at a critical time. Comey clearly was anti-Cinton.
Letting someone off with a warning instead of arresting the person isn't making law. It can be applied unfairly, and often is, but police do have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.
You're starting with the "right" to own and operate firearms. Therefore, if someone forbids you to get a firearm, you see it as an attack on your rights. In most other developed countries, people don't have a guaranteed right to firearms, and see good reasons for restrictions on them.
Are you upset about the Reagan-era law that says we can't have an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986? Since that forbids either of us from getting a modern infantry rifle, it looks to me to be infringing on the Second Amendment. (Personally, I"m not real fond of that amendment, but it's still part of the Constitution, and I dislike infringing on Constitutional rights.) That law stops private individuals from owning and operating modern automatic weapons in legal manners.
Having a lot of countries run by IQ 120 leaders may not be the way to go either. There are real advantages to larger countries, and negotiating treaties and international law isn't a complete substitute.
There's no clear opponent because it's January 2018, and we'll select the candidate in Summer 2020 and have the general election in November 2020. There's plenty of time for somebody to come out of relative obscurity and get the nomination.
Are Democrats in favor of mass immigration? Or does it matter if they can be described in those terms?
A completely meaningless name is better than Free for software that is free to use to the fullest? I strongly disagree, and if we disagree that much we may as well drop it.
You didn't say "compatible with the GPL". You said "copyleft-compatible". Not all Free software is GPL-compatible, and I didn't bother looking up other copyleft licenses to see if said Free Software is compatible with them.
Throttling certain sites is one of the things Net Neutrality forbids. Therefore, the FCC was enforcing NN during that period. Any other ISPs that entered the market did so while NN was enforced.
Most people like living free of toxic waste (at least other people's). Many people like getting the whole internet without paying extra. In the first case, it only takes one company of many to ruin your whole day and probably tomorrow, while in the second it takes all of a normally extremely short list of companies to decide. In neither case do we want each individual company to decide.
Why would they be more expensive than raw materials for additive manufacturing? Subtractively manufacturing a part means taking a block of some material and cutting away anything that doesn't look like the part. There's various methods for additive, but they generally require the material in a more fussy configuration than just a block.
Special Relativity can be comprehended by a reasonably intelligent people who knows some algebra, and it introduces some fascinating concepts. General Relativity is much more complicated. The explanations I've seen involve either a lot of hand-waving or tensor calculus. Start with Special Relativity, and leave the General Relativity stuff for later, if ever.
The iodine isotope that people were afraid of at Fukushima is gone, and by that I mean it's exceedingly unlikely that there's an atom left. The cesium isotope has a half-life of about forty years (strontium-90 is under thirty years). Figuring three thousand as the lower bound of several thousand, that's about 75 half-lives for cesium, which means that, if you start out with kilograms, you've got a good number of atoms left. If you want your cesium to decay to 0.1% of what it started as, wait about four hundred years.
Seriously, the really dangerous stuff won't last centuries.
Since most paper is used to write and print on, and almost none for maritime construction, why do we need paper that costs more but can be used to build canoes?
Thinking back on the Twentieth Century...Woodrow Wilson had his wife as effective President in his last days or years, Franklin Roosevelt would have gotten us a better deal at the 1945 Yalta conference if he hadn't been half dead, and apparently the person in charge as Reagan was nearing his end in office was Nancy's astrologer. I think a candidate's health is a valid concern.
Then why is it that I want jeans that are 30"/36" relaxed fit, and my wife wants size 14 long? If women's bodies are so different, why are there fewer numbers?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a fair number of dumb people who are really bad. They tend to lack the competence to do really inhumane things on anything other than small scale.
How good a leader was Jefferson? I'm a lot more impressed by this thoughts and ideas and rhetoric than his performance as President.
I've dealt with people two sigmas apart with no problems. I often deal with people three sigmas down.
My attitude is that I'm smart, so I should be able to figure out how to communicate. It took me a long time to get the hang of it, but I figured it out pretty well. When trying to convince people less intelligent than me, I look for reasons they'll understand. I'm pretty good at it.
I think I'd do better without the ASD, but I seem do get by.
If greater strength is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve to have more efficient, or at least bigger, muscles? Or, if resistance to injury and disease is more advantageous, why didn't we evolve more of it (as it is, we're really really good at it, by animal standards).
The current human genome is demonstrably less efficient than it could be, because evolution doesn't use good optimization algorithms that converge fast. Given that, just being qualitatively superior in a trait to all other animals may wind up as enough.
It was a result of extraordinary intelligence. Einstein didn't get his Nobel Prize for Special Relativity, but instead for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. In 1905, he published on Special Relativity, the mechanism behind the photoelectric effect, and how Brownian motion worked, three major breakthroughs. Later on, he published on General Relativity. That's four really major breakthroughs in physics, and I might have missed something. He wasn't a one-hit wonder.
It wasn't just basic very high intelligence. Henri Poincare had pretty much worked out the mathematics of Special Relativity earlier, but Poincare didn't understand their implications, which were too radical for him to consider. Einstein realized that the mathematics showed that there is no such thing as absolute space, absolute time, and that "at the same time" is meaningless applied to events at different locations. Relativity remained extremely controversial for a long time.
His contributions to the later development of quantum physics were of another sort. He could never accept the Uncertainty Principal, so he came up with really ingenious arguments against it, which forced the people who were right about quantum mechanics to nail everything down, and therefore helped confirm the Principal.
In what way was the intellectual class harming the middle and working classes? I'd say it was the upper class that was doing it, and that's not the intellectual class. Intellectuals, after the 60s, were reluctant to embark on foreign adventurism.
The mass of journalists supporting Clinton in 2016 was because they were aware of what would happen with the alternative. Journalists have always tended to be left-wing (they are exposed to more reality than most people), and media owners tend to be hard right-wing, so it balances out.
Pershing was a good general in some respects, but I don't see greatness. He did indeed insist on the American Expeditionary Force acting as a whole, which delayed its effectiveness to the very end of the war. It seems to me that the largest effect of the US entry on the war was presenting Germany with a deadline: win in 1918 or lose, because in 1919 the US was going to have pretty much its full strength in the war.
The main rap against the Entente leadership was that the Western Front was a bloody stalemate for years. The assumption is that they should have thought of a way to avoid that. However, in a century of speculating, nobody's come up with a way to do it. Some people have named leaders, like Napoleon and the Australian commander Monash, who they thought could have broken through. Faced with similar situations, Napoleon did no better. Monash was an excellent commander, applying the offensive tactics of the day superbly, but he couldn't come up with a better solution.
The Germans are often lauded for their Stosstruppen tactics, but those weren't all that much advanced over contemporary British and French tactics. The major difference is that the Stosstruppen were attacking defensive systems far less sophisticated than what the Germans had. Even then, the Germans couldn't accomplish anything decisive.
Late war offensive tactics were perfectly adequate to coordinate infantry and artillery to take a trench line. When attacking Germans, behind that would be another trench line. If the infantry struggled forward to assault it, timing the artillery support was largely guesswork. There was no way to break through German lines without halfway decent portable radios. Even late in 1918, they were keeping a continuous line, although it was falling back pretty rapidly.
She got more primary votes than Sanders, and more delegates. Sanders did better in caucus states, where you'd expect the party to have greater influence. Not to mention there was no such thing as "her primary" - there are fifty states and a few other territories, all of which had some method of picking delegates.
Nope. Comey's October sortaleak about Clinton's emails hurt her in the polls at a critical time. Comey clearly was anti-Cinton.
Would you care to provide reasons why you think Obama was stupid and irrational? Reasons why you disagreed with him or his policies don't count.
Letting someone off with a warning instead of arresting the person isn't making law. It can be applied unfairly, and often is, but police do have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.
You're starting with the "right" to own and operate firearms. Therefore, if someone forbids you to get a firearm, you see it as an attack on your rights. In most other developed countries, people don't have a guaranteed right to firearms, and see good reasons for restrictions on them.
Are you upset about the Reagan-era law that says we can't have an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986? Since that forbids either of us from getting a modern infantry rifle, it looks to me to be infringing on the Second Amendment. (Personally, I"m not real fond of that amendment, but it's still part of the Constitution, and I dislike infringing on Constitutional rights.) That law stops private individuals from owning and operating modern automatic weapons in legal manners.
Having a lot of countries run by IQ 120 leaders may not be the way to go either. There are real advantages to larger countries, and negotiating treaties and international law isn't a complete substitute.
There's no clear opponent because it's January 2018, and we'll select the candidate in Summer 2020 and have the general election in November 2020. There's plenty of time for somebody to come out of relative obscurity and get the nomination.
Are Democrats in favor of mass immigration? Or does it matter if they can be described in those terms?
A completely meaningless name is better than Free for software that is free to use to the fullest? I strongly disagree, and if we disagree that much we may as well drop it.
You didn't say "compatible with the GPL". You said "copyleft-compatible". Not all Free software is GPL-compatible, and I didn't bother looking up other copyleft licenses to see if said Free Software is compatible with them.
Thanks for the added info.
Throttling certain sites is one of the things Net Neutrality forbids. Therefore, the FCC was enforcing NN during that period. Any other ISPs that entered the market did so while NN was enforced.
Most people like living free of toxic waste (at least other people's). Many people like getting the whole internet without paying extra. In the first case, it only takes one company of many to ruin your whole day and probably tomorrow, while in the second it takes all of a normally extremely short list of companies to decide. In neither case do we want each individual company to decide.
Why would they be more expensive than raw materials for additive manufacturing? Subtractively manufacturing a part means taking a block of some material and cutting away anything that doesn't look like the part. There's various methods for additive, but they generally require the material in a more fussy configuration than just a block.
Special Relativity can be comprehended by a reasonably intelligent people who knows some algebra, and it introduces some fascinating concepts. General Relativity is much more complicated. The explanations I've seen involve either a lot of hand-waving or tensor calculus. Start with Special Relativity, and leave the General Relativity stuff for later, if ever.
The iodine isotope that people were afraid of at Fukushima is gone, and by that I mean it's exceedingly unlikely that there's an atom left. The cesium isotope has a half-life of about forty years (strontium-90 is under thirty years). Figuring three thousand as the lower bound of several thousand, that's about 75 half-lives for cesium, which means that, if you start out with kilograms, you've got a good number of atoms left. If you want your cesium to decay to 0.1% of what it started as, wait about four hundred years.
Seriously, the really dangerous stuff won't last centuries.
Hard to argue with that, though.
Since most paper is used to write and print on, and almost none for maritime construction, why do we need paper that costs more but can be used to build canoes?
Around here they specifically ask for unwrapped toys etc., in order to save a step and a lot of wrapping paper.
Thinking back on the Twentieth Century...Woodrow Wilson had his wife as effective President in his last days or years, Franklin Roosevelt would have gotten us a better deal at the 1945 Yalta conference if he hadn't been half dead, and apparently the person in charge as Reagan was nearing his end in office was Nancy's astrologer. I think a candidate's health is a valid concern.
Then why is it that I want jeans that are 30"/36" relaxed fit, and my wife wants size 14 long? If women's bodies are so different, why are there fewer numbers?