So, what specifically has he actually said - in context - that you find "cruel"? Go ahead. Taking out-of-context quotes from left-wing web sites doesn't count.
You must have really lambasted Obama when he was in office over his job statistics, right?
Of course not. Remember, anything bad that happened during Obama's term was Bush's fault. Now, anything bad is Trump's fault. Anything good was because of Obama during his term. Also, the good economy now is because of Obama.
The difference is, that you're the one advocating for and defending the ones with an express desire to remove your rights. It's only recursive once you've handwaved away the actual purpose for having ethics and morals; at the end of the day the right want to remove rights from everyone while the left wants to provide rights to everyone. This is plain as day to all but the least intelligent people (who predictably lean right).
Yeah, the left wants to provide rights to everyone.
LOL. You don't really believe this nonsense, do you?
Your appeal to authority is cute, but the "paradox of intolerance" can stand or fall on its own. It's only the intolerant left who use it so that they can pretend to be "tolerant" and then switch to the infantile "but I don't have to be tolerant because you're hateful" bullshit when called on it.
Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders.
They did "constructively engage outside stakeholders". The SJWs aren't interested in how to more constructively do so, but how to less constructively do so.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
And, that brings in the "paradox of paradox of tolerance". Now you're "intolerant", so I don't have to tolerate you. Now I'm intolerant. Etc. It's amazing how the left brings up this intellectual infantilism as if it's some brilliant idea, and don't notice that it's recursive.
It took many years, but one day I was having a phone conversation with my sister and the cat's name ("cat") came up in the middle of a sentence. Like "Yeah, I once had a cat like that". The point is that I wasn't calling her in a familiar voice, looking at her, and I didn't stress that word. It was in the middle of a sentence. Right after that word she looked up and meowed at me. At that point, I knew that she actually knew the word.
She was highly intelligent and had spent 7+ years living on her own outside after someone had apparently abandoned her. She knew how to catch food, but when I brought her inside she had no problem being inside, either, just always wanted to go back outside.
Exactly. The whole thing is a shit-show of money being more important than reason, those who have investors, and which "side" they're on. "The People" are like muted pets on the side of it all.
Yep. When we were fighting the superdmca bill 17 or so years ago here in TN, the cable lobby was buying both Republicans and Democrats. Actually, the bill's sponsor in the senate was a Republican who happened to be the father of the head of the TN cable lobby. The house sponsor was a Democrat with long family ties to politics around here.
Speaking of a sense of proportion.... in the United States you're three times as likely to die from a shark attack (1 death per year on average) as you are from from the measles (1 death every 3 years on average from 387 reported measles cases per year).
To put that into further perspective, the U.S. averages 11 deaths from fireworks and 24 from train crashes per year. Death from a literal lightning strike is 141 times as common than dying from the measles in the United States.
So let's not overreact quite yet.
Yes, there are things that kill you other than measles. The difference is that measles is pretty easily preventable - people just have to get vaccinated.
The other issue with measles - and most of the "childhood diseases" - is that they have other complications besides death.
"About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability."
"Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness. Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States."
They conveniently leave out the verses that say the earth is round (meaning, a sphere) and hung in the heavens. Even the ancients understood this stuff to some extent, they use allegories which people now are taking literally.
How would you know that? You can't prove a negative. Security is mostly a deterrent.
"You can't prove a negative" isn't exactly true. Some negatives can be turned into positives which can then be proven. For instance, I say that the word "bollocks" isn't in the King James Bible. You say "prove it". I say "har har, you can't prove a negative!"
But, you can. You can examine every single word in the King James Bible, and show that none of them are "bollocks".
Likewise, "people that the TSA has screened" is a large but finite set. The TSA has never caught a terrorist. If you think they have, go ahead and provide a link. I can save you the time now - they've never done it.
Technically I would say "inability to prove a positive isn't proof of the negative", but in this case it is.
Plus the fact that all of this "incendiary and toxic content" that I'm supposed to be worried about is "alt-right" or just plain "conservative". Ignore the Muslim recruitment videos, left-wing hate (Linda Sarsour, etc.), Pallywood, Communists, etc.
That's why they have no credibility: They're not against "incendiary and toxic content" - they're against conservatives.
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
I must have missed that price mentioned in the IPCC reports. Do you have a link?
"Climate alarmism" is only tangentially related to global warming science. Al Gore is an alarmist. AOC is an alarmist. These people use climate alarmism to gain money and power.
I didn't say the earth isn't getting warmer. I have no doubt it's gotten warmer in my lifetime. But we're not all going to die in 12 years because of it. See the difference?
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie. Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie. Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
It's not "shrinking slower", it's "growing".
I find it ironic, though, that you're accusing him of this. Read the summary. There, you'll find that:
Glacier shrinking - Bad news! It's climate change! Glacier growing - Bad news! It's climate change!
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
No I don't, worship has nothing to do with it. You will not find the word worship used anywhere in science except in the study religion and even then only because worship is a central concept in religion. I don't think climate models are an omnipresent entity that only scientists can hear. So far no scientist has delivered to me a message from climate models that only they can hear that instructs me on how to live my life or else the almighty climate models will cast me into hell for an eternity of sadistic torture for refusing to 'believe'. That's how religion works.
Yes, and climate alarmism is absolutely a religion cut from the same cloth. Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization. That's always about 10-15 years from now. Penance is made by deindustrialization and return to nature. Plus, of course, state control over all aspects of everybody's lives. Honest lefties will tell you that they also want the human population to decrease significantly. Of course, with entire countries disappearing under the rising oceans, that will happen, anyway according to their religion.
That is a very standard religious model.
Climate science, like all science, is a method of procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion.
Right, this is the standard fallback position.
There actually is "climate science", and it mostly tells us that the earth is getting warmer.
Climate alarmism, on the other hand, comes up with gems like this:
While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term...
Everything is "bad news". Everything! It doesn't matter what happens, it'll be twisted to "I told you so!"
This is what religion looks like.
Science says "The glacier is growing again, I wonder what is making that happen since my hypothesis is that it should be shrinking."
The problem here is that the leftists have decided that anybody right of Bernie Sanders is a hateful Nazi, so Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos are disinvited from speaking. They're both Jews, in case you're wondering.
If we let them keep nazis and the KKK from marching, what we end up with is conservative Jews being discriminated against. I'll take the ACLU's side on this one.
You're conflating two different concepts. We have no way of knowing what piece of code has the highest number of vulnerabilities. To find that out, we would have to freeze all development and then scour all existing code using some standardized methodology.
What you're talking about here is that the Linux kernel had the second highest number of vulnerabilities that were discovered. BIG difference.
The Linux kernel is open source and is by far the most widely used operating system in the world. Vulnerabilities in Linux are golden tickets, so people are looking for them all the time. Having a simple aggregate list like that is also of limited value because it doesn't tell you the nature of the exploit.
Why, looky there. Ask yourself a question: How bad is this?
See, before Cisco fessed up, few people knew about this. It wouldn't have shown up on your list there. But something like this almost certainly trumps 20 regular vulnerabilities. It's nearly impossible to put something like this into open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what specifically has he actually said - in context - that you find "cruel"? Go ahead. Taking out-of-context quotes from left-wing web sites doesn't count.
If it was their software, I expect that they *would* be responsible for the errors caused by their software.
Okay. Name one single instance where a government screwed something up and the people in government were voluntarily responsible. It's never happened.
I'm really torn on whether this is a good idea or not, but right now there are plenty of free filing sites so I'm not sure what the problem is.
What's interesting is that for-profit prisons aren't the only group. Even if the government runs the prisons:
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
"POLICE AND PRISON GUARD GROUPS FIGHT MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN CALIFORNIA"
I'm against for-profit prisons, but I'm also against public-sector unions since they have the same perverse incentives.
A tiny, vocal minority that lefties like you refuse to stand up to, which makes you complicit in their behavior.
We're literally at the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and you're complaining???
You must have really lambasted Obama when he was in office over his job statistics, right?
Of course not. Remember, anything bad that happened during Obama's term was Bush's fault. Now, anything bad is Trump's fault. Anything good was because of Obama during his term. Also, the good economy now is because of Obama.
Remember:
R = bad
D = good
The difference is, that you're the one advocating for and defending the ones with an express desire to remove your rights. It's only recursive once you've handwaved away the actual purpose for having ethics and morals; at the end of the day the right want to remove rights from everyone while the left wants to provide rights to everyone. This is plain as day to all but the least intelligent people (who predictably lean right).
Yeah, the left wants to provide rights to everyone.
LOL. You don't really believe this nonsense, do you?
Your appeal to authority is cute, but the "paradox of intolerance" can stand or fall on its own. It's only the intolerant left who use it so that they can pretend to be "tolerant" and then switch to the infantile "but I don't have to be tolerant because you're hateful" bullshit when called on it.
Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders.
They did "constructively engage outside stakeholders". The SJWs aren't interested in how to more constructively do so, but how to less constructively do so.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
And, that brings in the "paradox of paradox of tolerance". Now you're "intolerant", so I don't have to tolerate you. Now I'm intolerant. Etc. It's amazing how the left brings up this intellectual infantilism as if it's some brilliant idea, and don't notice that it's recursive.
It took many years, but one day I was having a phone conversation with my sister and the cat's name ("cat") came up in the middle of a sentence. Like "Yeah, I once had a cat like that". The point is that I wasn't calling her in a familiar voice, looking at her, and I didn't stress that word. It was in the middle of a sentence. Right after that word she looked up and meowed at me. At that point, I knew that she actually knew the word.
She was highly intelligent and had spent 7+ years living on her own outside after someone had apparently abandoned her. She knew how to catch food, but when I brought her inside she had no problem being inside, either, just always wanted to go back outside.
Exactly. The whole thing is a shit-show of money being more important than reason, those who have investors, and which "side" they're on. "The People" are like muted pets on the side of it all.
Yep. When we were fighting the superdmca bill 17 or so years ago here in TN, the cable lobby was buying both Republicans and Democrats. Actually, the bill's sponsor in the senate was a Republican who happened to be the father of the head of the TN cable lobby. The house sponsor was a Democrat with long family ties to politics around here.
...you're better off not being on Facebook.
Note that this clause works well even without any qualifiers.
Speaking of a sense of proportion.... in the United States you're three times as likely to die from a shark attack (1 death per year on average) as you are from from the measles (1 death every 3 years on average from 387 reported measles cases per year).
To put that into further perspective, the U.S. averages 11 deaths from fireworks and 24 from train crashes per year. Death from a literal lightning strike is 141 times as common than dying from the measles in the United States.
So let's not overreact quite yet.
Yes, there are things that kill you other than measles. The difference is that measles is pretty easily preventable - people just have to get vaccinated.
The other issue with measles - and most of the "childhood diseases" - is that they have other complications besides death.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/ab...
"About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability."
"Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness. Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States."
That last line is ironic.
I'm still not convinced that any of the flat-earthers are actually serious.
I know one. I have bad news for you. They are really, really serious.
See here for someone explaining it from a supposed "biblical" standpoint:
http://www.jaymc.com/FlatEarth...
and this graphic in particular, with Bible verses:
http://www.jaymc.com/FlatEarth...
They conveniently leave out the verses that say the earth is round (meaning, a sphere) and hung in the heavens. Even the ancients understood this stuff to some extent, they use allegories which people now are taking literally.
How would you know that? You can't prove a negative. Security is mostly a deterrent.
"You can't prove a negative" isn't exactly true. Some negatives can be turned into positives which can then be proven. For instance, I say that the word "bollocks" isn't in the King James Bible. You say "prove it". I say "har har, you can't prove a negative!"
But, you can. You can examine every single word in the King James Bible, and show that none of them are "bollocks".
Likewise, "people that the TSA has screened" is a large but finite set. The TSA has never caught a terrorist. If you think they have, go ahead and provide a link. I can save you the time now - they've never done it.
Technically I would say "inability to prove a positive isn't proof of the negative", but in this case it is.
By the way - not a Freudian slip.
Yeah, I mean, Communists only kill 100,000,000+ people in the last 100 years. But, you know, other than that, they're a pretty peaceful bunch.
Plus the fact that all of this "incendiary and toxic content" that I'm supposed to be worried about is "alt-right" or just plain "conservative". Ignore the Muslim recruitment videos, left-wing hate (Linda Sarsour, etc.), Pallywood, Communists, etc.
That's why they have no credibility: They're not against "incendiary and toxic content" - they're against conservatives.
If you are shopping for premium produce at low prices I recommend the Hispanic store.
Asian stores also have fresh produce at low prices. I live in San Jose, and there are plenty of Asians here, as well as plenty of Hispanics.
Understatement of the year.
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
I must have missed that price mentioned in the IPCC reports. Do you have a link?
"Climate alarmism" is only tangentially related to global warming science. Al Gore is an alarmist. AOC is an alarmist. These people use climate alarmism to gain money and power.
I didn't say the earth isn't getting warmer. I have no doubt it's gotten warmer in my lifetime. But we're not all going to die in 12 years because of it. See the difference?
They did the same damned thing to my company. I tell you, if it weren't for them and their Java rip-off, everybody would be making cell phones.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
It's not "shrinking slower", it's "growing".
I find it ironic, though, that you're accusing him of this. Read the summary. There, you'll find that:
Glacier shrinking - Bad news! It's climate change!
Glacier growing - Bad news! It's climate change!
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
No I don't, worship has nothing to do with it. You will not find the word worship used anywhere in science except in the study religion and even then only because worship is a central concept in religion. I don't think climate models are an omnipresent entity that only scientists can hear. So far no scientist has delivered to me a message from climate models that only they can hear that instructs me on how to live my life or else the almighty climate models will cast me into hell for an eternity of sadistic torture for refusing to 'believe'. That's how religion works.
Yes, and climate alarmism is absolutely a religion cut from the same cloth. Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization. That's always about 10-15 years from now. Penance is made by deindustrialization and return to nature. Plus, of course, state control over all aspects of everybody's lives. Honest lefties will tell you that they also want the human population to decrease significantly. Of course, with entire countries disappearing under the rising oceans, that will happen, anyway according to their religion.
That is a very standard religious model.
Climate science, like all science, is a method of procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion.
Right, this is the standard fallback position.
There actually is "climate science", and it mostly tells us that the earth is getting warmer.
Climate alarmism, on the other hand, comes up with gems like this:
While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term...
Everything is "bad news". Everything! It doesn't matter what happens, it'll be twisted to "I told you so!"
This is what religion looks like.
Science says "The glacier is growing again, I wonder what is making that happen since my hypothesis is that it should be shrinking."
See the difference?
While I'm not "the right", I will say that *real* tolerance absolutely demands it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/acl...
The problem here is that the leftists have decided that anybody right of Bernie Sanders is a hateful Nazi, so Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos are disinvited from speaking. They're both Jews, in case you're wondering.
If we let them keep nazis and the KKK from marching, what we end up with is conservative Jews being discriminated against. I'll take the ACLU's side on this one.
Do you? Is that why the top 6 products with the most vulnerabilities in 2018 were all Linux products? Is that why the Linux kernel had the second highest number of vulnerabilities in 2017?
You're conflating two different concepts. We have no way of knowing what piece of code has the highest number of vulnerabilities. To find that out, we would have to freeze all development and then scour all existing code using some standardized methodology.
What you're talking about here is that the Linux kernel had the second highest number of vulnerabilities that were discovered. BIG difference.
The Linux kernel is open source and is by far the most widely used operating system in the world. Vulnerabilities in Linux are golden tickets, so people are looking for them all the time. Having a simple aggregate list like that is also of limited value because it doesn't tell you the nature of the exploit.
https://www.csoonline.com/arti...
Why, looky there. Ask yourself a question: How bad is this?
See, before Cisco fessed up, few people knew about this. It wouldn't have shown up on your list there. But something like this almost certainly trumps 20 regular vulnerabilities. It's nearly impossible to put something like this into open source software.