The major problem with the "rural" vs coastal concept is MONEY.
When you split a state, you don't just get to ignore the debt, it has to be split up and fairly. But the coastal part earns all the money, while the rural part of California has a bunch of wealthy people that hate high taxes.
If they split the state, the rural people will try to avoid their fair share of taxes, leaving them with not enough taxes to pay off their share of the debt.
Mere intelligence is not enough, you also need to know that someone is trustworthy. If someone is a little bit smarter than you, you can understand what they are saying and therefore comprehend their plan when they explain it. You don't need to trust them, you can understand that by making abortion legal, you can expect population growth to slow.
But when someone is a LOT smarter than you, you can't do that. You literally are not smart enough to understand their plan, even if they explain it slowly. In other words, when you try to project the results, you think their plan will fail. You have to trust them. So when they tell you that legalizing abortion merely delays the decision to have children, rather than reducing the total number of children, and therefore legalizing abortion will NOT slow population growth, you are not sure if they telling you the truth or tricking you.
Worse, everyone of normal intelligence knows that some people are untrustworthy. So unless they have earned your trust, you are more likely to DISLIKE a plan that you do not understand, which is usually the plan a really intelligent person will put forth.
Note, I would bet that the number they discovered '20 IQ points'- is a constant across multiple IQ catetgories.
That is, people with an IQ of 100 trust people upto 120, and people of IQ 110, trust people upto 130, while people with an IQ of 140 will trust leaders upto an IQ of 150.
I disagree with what you say on multiple levels. I did NOT claim that criminal history is a proxy for race. Instead I claimed that blacks are disproportionately likely to have a criminal history. I also do not agree that race predicts recidivism independently, your blatantly racist belief that certain races commit more crimes. One study (or two or three) does not confirm your racist beliefs.
There are multitude other studies that contradict yours - and they have major holes in them. One of the big holes is that you assume arrest statistics are fair, the cops clearly are not. I.E. as demonstrated by this story: https://features.propublica.or..., blacks are far more likely to be punished by police for the same infraction that is ignored when white men do it. This negates the value of statistics showing blacks commit more crimes.
Finally, I do not eliminate valid independent variables. Instead, I claim they are not valid,.
No. The problem is that people have realized the software is racist. What happens is this:
Black citizens tend to get more minor criminal issues than white ones because of institutional racism. Then this software sees that a black man has two citations for, say crossing the street away from a crosswalk, while the white man does not. So it gives him a higher risk of recidivism, which means more bail/longer jail time.
Then the software guys complain and say they aren't racist, they are just applying the algorithm.
This article is trying to shut them up by saying their algorithm, in addition to being racist, doesn't work any better than simple common sense.
It is not an attack on the business model, just of the current state of the art.
1) They are not trading 'string of essentially random bits'. I 2) There is and always has been a real need for MONEY. Money being a means of exchange. 3) There is and always has been a real need for money that is NOT controlled by any government. Hence the original money was metal that the government could not declare worthless because people always needed metal.
Please remember that bitcoin et. al. was not intended to be a huge mania, it was created to fill a real need and it WORKED. That's why it started becoming big.
You oversimplified a real product something that you do not understand (the money aspect, not the blockchain aspect) and ignored it's real value.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Bitcoin has REAL VALUE, just as tulips do.
1) My entire POST was about how mania does not mean it has no value.
2) I should have clarified that mania is not when a few amateurs enter, but instead when the market is dominated by the amateurs. The stock market is in fact dominated by professionals that look at a lot of information with only a few amateurs chasing the instant get rich. But in a huge market of hundreds of millions, 'a few' = millions. But by far most shares traded are done by machines, then by major institutional investors, with individuals accounting for a minute portion of the shares.
Bitcoin is another tulips. Some cryptocurrency will always have value, just as tulips still sell for as much as $10. But they once sold for literally 10x the annual income of a skilled craftsmen.
My personal favorite is the wikipedia's page list of what was exchanged once for a single tulip bulb, which included (among other things) four tun of beer and two hogshead of wine AND a silver cup to drink it (1 hogshead = 79 gallons, 4 hogshead = 1 tun, so clearly a beer lover).
A mania is basically when non-professionals enter the market for speculative purposes, rather than because they want/need the core item.
This is clearly happening with the cryptocurrencies. The only question is, what will their real value end up after the mania has ended.
"I'm willing to accept that this might lead to too few males for a viable population, if somehow turtles are different from basically any other animal on earth, and one male can't service many females. "
This statement demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance. A huge number of animals on earth do NOT engage in polymagous behavior. Frankly, it is not true that 'one male can service many females' for many many animals, for a variety of reasons.
While it is true that physical possibility exists for most (but not all: seahorses - male caries the egg and cares for it - and the fish where the male attaches itself to the female comes to mind) animals, it is also true that many, many animals have hard coded instincts that prevent this from happening. Examples include:
Prairie Vole Black Vultures Hornbill birds Red backed salamander Azara Night Monkeys Wolves Otters Eurasian Beaver
That said, sea turtles are not monogamous. So the only real problem this may result in is the difficulty is logistics. They don't have tinder and finding one another may be problematic. One male may be able to service 300 hundred females but if there is only one male born for every 500 female, then the population will drop precipitously.
For most wealthy companies, you would be right. But we aren't talking about most wealthy companies, we are talking about the descendants of J.D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
As such, they are not rich because people want to use their product. They are rich because J.D. Rockefeller committed more crimes than pretty much any other 1% ever.
He made secret deals with railroads to prevent them from shipping other companies oil. He spied on his competitors, passing out bribes left and right. When congress tried to break up his illegal monopoly, he hid from the subpoena for YEARS. They illegally bought up cheap public light rail and shut them down, replacing it with more expensive, oil burning buses.
Any other company, I would say, yes, being rich does not mean you are guilty. Most wealthy people are not evil. But the oil companies have a history just as bad, if not worse, than big tobacco.
This response if fairly typical of anything that isn't a clear black and white issue.
1) Man opens stranger's purse and takes $50 = theft. 2) Same, but is his 15 year old daughter's purse without permission, is it theft? 3) Same but daughter had broken a $50 bottle of wine, is it theft? 4) Man opens wife's purse (no permission) and takes $50 to buy food and does not tell her after the fact - is it theft? 5) Same but does tell her after the fact, is it theft?. 6) Same thing but he puts in a check for $50 and takes her $50 in cash is it theft?
Obviously, everyone says 1 is theft, and not many people are going to call #6 theft, but the stuff in between is not black and white. Some will call it theft, others will not.
There are certain things that private corporations should not do. Except for the most ardent libertarians, the army is a prime example.
Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads. Why? Because 1) everybody needs them. 2) Once a minimum quality level is reached, there is little difference, aside from how much you use it. 3) It is to everyone's benefit that the road system goes everywhere, not just the most high traffic areas. 4) There is minimal innovation, we know how to build this, it isn't hard, there really isn't anything to compete on except for price and capacity. 5) It makes no sense to build multiple road systems side by side - doing so would take up excess space with minimal advantages.
All of these same arguments except the last apply to the internet just as much as it does to car roads. There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.
Basically, private business have ZERO business competing with local government tax dollars on this. They have NO benefit to anyone except themselves and the people they bribed to get monopolies.
Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.
Corporations are great and wonderful in their place. But they have severe limitations and frankly, running an ISP is a bad idea.
If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing. They are not owed a business, they must EARN it.
That seems to be the take away for this. Worst case scenario, replace the battery. Leaf cars can even replace individual cells rather than the whole battery.
If we had alien space ships, Trumps would have spilled the beans in the first month. If people had hid it from him, by now they would have been replaced with people that would not spill the beans.
First, let me state that I do NOT think a software idea patent would be a good idea.
But the entire reason why we created patents is to stop a large corporation from giving away the invention of a small company, driving them out of business.
We need a new method, someway of ensuring that if you come up with a new business idea, you get to make a profit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
The major problem with the "rural" vs coastal concept is MONEY.
When you split a state, you don't just get to ignore the debt, it has to be split up and fairly. But the coastal part earns all the money, while the rural part of California has a bunch of wealthy people that hate high taxes.
If they split the state, the rural people will try to avoid their fair share of taxes, leaving them with not enough taxes to pay off their share of the debt.
Whoops, I did the math wrong their at the end, it was supposed to be people of an IQ of 140 trust those with an IQ up to 160.
Guess my IQ is not 160.
Mere intelligence is not enough, you also need to know that someone is trustworthy. If someone is a little bit smarter than you, you can understand what they are saying and therefore comprehend their plan when they explain it. You don't need to trust them, you can understand that by making abortion legal, you can expect population growth to slow.
But when someone is a LOT smarter than you, you can't do that. You literally are not smart enough to understand their plan, even if they explain it slowly. In other words, when you try to project the results, you think their plan will fail. You have to trust them. So when they tell you that legalizing abortion merely delays the decision to have children, rather than reducing the total number of children, and therefore legalizing abortion will NOT slow population growth, you are not sure if they telling you the truth or tricking you.
Worse, everyone of normal intelligence knows that some people are untrustworthy. So unless they have earned your trust, you are more likely to DISLIKE a plan that you do not understand, which is usually the plan a really intelligent person will put forth.
Note, I would bet that the number they discovered '20 IQ points'- is a constant across multiple IQ catetgories.
That is, people with an IQ of 100 trust people upto 120, and people of IQ 110, trust people upto 130, while people with an IQ of 140 will trust leaders upto an IQ of 150.
I disagree with what you say on multiple levels. I did NOT claim that criminal history is a proxy for race. Instead I claimed that blacks are disproportionately likely to have a criminal history. I also do not agree that race predicts recidivism independently, your blatantly racist belief that certain races commit more crimes. One study (or two or three) does not confirm your racist beliefs.
There are multitude other studies that contradict yours - and they have major holes in them. One of the big holes is that you assume arrest statistics are fair, the cops clearly are not. I.E. as demonstrated by this story: https://features.propublica.or..., blacks are far more likely to be punished by police for the same infraction that is ignored when white men do it. This negates the value of statistics showing blacks commit more crimes.
Finally, I do not eliminate valid independent variables. Instead, I claim they are not valid,.
No. The problem is that people have realized the software is racist. What happens is this:
Black citizens tend to get more minor criminal issues than white ones because of institutional racism. Then this software sees that a black man has two citations for, say crossing the street away from a crosswalk, while the white man does not. So it gives him a higher risk of recidivism, which means more bail/longer jail time.
Then the software guys complain and say they aren't racist, they are just applying the algorithm.
This article is trying to shut them up by saying their algorithm, in addition to being racist, doesn't work any better than simple common sense.
It is not an attack on the business model, just of the current state of the art.
They definitely turn them over.
I would be surprised if they don't turn them in to someone wearing a badge they got out of a cereal box.
is sending so much information that it disrupts your internet connection, perhaps it is time to kick the spy OUT of your home.
Same for any other 'helpful' product that connects to the internet when it wants to, rather than when you need it to.
You are making a unfounded statement.
1) They are not trading 'string of essentially random bits'. I
2) There is and always has been a real need for MONEY. Money being a means of exchange.
3) There is and always has been a real need for money that is NOT controlled by any government. Hence the original money was metal that the government could not declare worthless because people always needed metal.
Please remember that bitcoin et. al. was not intended to be a huge mania, it was created to fill a real need and it WORKED. That's why it started becoming big.
You oversimplified a real product something that you do not understand (the money aspect, not the blockchain aspect) and ignored it's real value.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Bitcoin has REAL VALUE, just as tulips do.
1) My entire POST was about how mania does not mean it has no value.
2) I should have clarified that mania is not when a few amateurs enter, but instead when the market is dominated by the amateurs. The stock market is in fact dominated by professionals that look at a lot of information with only a few amateurs chasing the instant get rich. But in a huge market of hundreds of millions, 'a few' = millions. But by far most shares traded are done by machines, then by major institutional investors, with individuals accounting for a minute portion of the shares.
Bitcoin is another tulips. Some cryptocurrency will always have value, just as tulips still sell for as much as $10. But they once sold for literally 10x the annual income of a skilled craftsmen.
My personal favorite is the wikipedia's page list of what was exchanged once for a single tulip bulb, which included (among other things) four tun of beer and two hogshead of wine AND a silver cup to drink it (1 hogshead = 79 gallons, 4 hogshead = 1 tun, so clearly a beer lover).
A mania is basically when non-professionals enter the market for speculative purposes, rather than because they want/need the core item.
This is clearly happening with the cryptocurrencies. The only question is, what will their real value end up after the mania has ended.
"I'm willing to accept that this might lead to too few males for a viable population, if somehow turtles are different from basically any other animal on earth, and one male can't service many females. "
This statement demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance. A huge number of animals on earth do NOT engage in polymagous behavior. Frankly, it is not true that 'one male can service many females' for many many animals, for a variety of reasons.
While it is true that physical possibility exists for most (but not all: seahorses - male caries the egg and cares for it - and the fish where the male attaches itself to the female comes to mind) animals, it is also true that many, many animals have hard coded instincts that prevent this from happening. Examples include:
Prairie Vole
Black Vultures
Hornbill birds
Red backed salamander
Azara Night Monkeys
Wolves
Otters
Eurasian Beaver
That said, sea turtles are not monogamous. So the only real problem this may result in is the difficulty is logistics. They don't have tinder and finding one another may be problematic. One male may be able to service 300 hundred females but if there is only one male born for every 500 female, then the population will drop precipitously.
For most wealthy companies, you would be right. But we aren't talking about most wealthy companies, we are talking about the descendants of J.D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
As such, they are not rich because people want to use their product. They are rich because J.D. Rockefeller committed more crimes than pretty much any other 1% ever.
He made secret deals with railroads to prevent them from shipping other companies oil. He spied on his competitors, passing out bribes left and right. When congress tried to break up his illegal monopoly, he hid from the subpoena for YEARS. They illegally bought up cheap public light rail and shut them down, replacing it with more expensive, oil burning buses.
Any other company, I would say, yes, being rich does not mean you are guilty. Most wealthy people are not evil. But the oil companies have a history just as bad, if not worse, than big tobacco.
Obviously, we should only spend money to stop poor criminals, because it is too expensive it to go after the rich ones.
If you want to complain about someone being innocent, do so.
Right now, all you are doing is telling the world how easy it is to bribe you.
I bet they can find a bio-similar drug that avoids the more permanent/serious issues and simply prevents fertility.
I love my Roku. Simple and works.
Free apps for your phone/tablet to control it.
Just a great product.
This response if fairly typical of anything that isn't a clear black and white issue.
1) Man opens stranger's purse and takes $50 = theft.
2) Same, but is his 15 year old daughter's purse without permission, is it theft?
3) Same but daughter had broken a $50 bottle of wine, is it theft?
4) Man opens wife's purse (no permission) and takes $50 to buy food and does not tell her after the fact - is it theft?
5) Same but does tell her after the fact, is it theft?.
6) Same thing but he puts in a check for $50 and takes her $50 in cash is it theft?
Obviously, everyone says 1 is theft, and not many people are going to call #6 theft, but the stuff in between is not black and white. Some will call it theft, others will not.
How much you want to bet that this was one of their dirty tricks...
There are certain things that private corporations should not do. Except for the most ardent libertarians, the army is a prime example.
Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads. Why? Because 1) everybody needs them. 2) Once a minimum quality level is reached, there is little difference, aside from how much you use it. 3) It is to everyone's benefit that the road system goes everywhere, not just the most high traffic areas. 4) There is minimal innovation, we know how to build this, it isn't hard, there really isn't anything to compete on except for price and capacity. 5) It makes no sense to build multiple road systems side by side - doing so would take up excess space with minimal advantages.
All of these same arguments except the last apply to the internet just as much as it does to car roads. There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.
Basically, private business have ZERO business competing with local government tax dollars on this. They have NO benefit to anyone except themselves and the people they bribed to get monopolies.
Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.
Corporations are great and wonderful in their place. But they have severe limitations and frankly, running an ISP is a bad idea.
If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing. They are not owed a business, they must EARN it.
That seems to be the take away for this.
Worst case scenario, replace the battery. Leaf cars can even replace individual cells rather than the whole battery.
If we had alien space ships, Trumps would have spilled the beans in the first month. If people had hid it from him, by now they would have been replaced with people that would not spill the beans.
Better to simply give them a set goal and tell them it is the law, with fines on them if they fail to meat the goal.
Something simple like "down within x minutes", with penalties for taking the wrong stuff down.
First, let me state that I do NOT think a software idea patent would be a good idea.
But the entire reason why we created patents is to stop a large corporation from giving away the invention of a small company, driving them out of business.
We need a new method, someway of ensuring that if you come up with a new business idea, you get to make a profit from it.
Marvel focuses on movies and does a good job there, leaving their second string people to work on the comics.
Douche bags being reckless with other people's lives
Criminals thinking that what they did isn't that bad.
Militarized Cops - sure of their own righteous AND the villany of their target - over-reacting and shooting an innocent man
The various businesses saying "it's not our problem" rather than preventing anonymous calls to police/spoofed phone numbers.
People going "how horrible", but not really objecting or demanding action, because of how rare it is.
Neither political party taking appropriate steps to prevent this from happening again, because hey, no one really demanded action.
Really? Then why was I Modded' up and you were modded down?
Maybe you were paid to lie. Idiots like short things that say what they want without evidence.
Normal people like longer statements that make sense, rather than insults.