I have a French press, an automatic drip, and an espresso machine. I like all of them, and the fancy strikes me for different styles at different times. The automatic drip is my usual choice when I want to drink a whole bunch of coffee over the duration of a morning. Your user ID is lower than mine - surely you are too old for these hipster pissing contests? Just drink what you like.
OK, but you still can't ignore the direct harm of the car-on-human impact. If that relatively easy-to-measure number is up, then the ephemeral has to take a back seat. In short, if the cost of quieter streets is a 20% greater pedestrian accident rate... no thanks.
I'm taking the word of the experts that the danger is higher with electric cars because of their silence. I don't think they are asking for more noise than already exists from ICE cars, so you won't be disrupting the quiet on the street.
On the desktop, you can use the free "Spotify" application or web interface. You can also simply download the tracks, legally or otherwise. I'm not sure there's a problem that needs to be solved here. Many of those YouTube videos have no real video data anyway - they are either a static picture or a bit of text for lyrics and compress to almost nothing.
So was your comment sarcastic or not? I thought you were being serious - that people considered Newton's laws "settled". That's why I pointed out that Einstein provided examples of how they were incomplete over 100 years ago. If you were sarcastically critiquing the article, I apologize - I misunderstood your sarcasm.
I think I agree with everything you wrote. My initial reply in this thread was to someone (Wycliffe) claiming that, hey, my friends don't think Fox is biased! So please read it from within that context... I didn't mean to give the study too much credit - but it's a hell of a lot more rigorous than an informal recollection of past conversations with friends:)
I think you inadvertently just provided a demonstration of how the author's methodology can work: someone authors a bullshit list, and then you (the third party) can analyze it and tell how biased it is one way or another. For your critical analogy to hold up, I would need to accept that Wikipedia has a limited subset of topics such that it can have a bias through simple omission. Wikipedia is slightly more complete than your standard internet meme:)
It sounds like you want a semantic argument over the word "balanced". I'm not really interested in that. The authors explicitly lay out their methodology, so there isn't really any ambiguity here - "balanced" in this context is simply +1 point for a Republican viewpoint and -1 for a Democratic viewpoint. I think repeating the study with different criteria would be very interesting - in your case, classing stuff by what philosophy it falls into. I'm partial to the scientific method, myself, so it would be interesting to see how biased Wikipedia is towards science.
That part seems relatively easy - just follow the platform and highlight parts that differ. This would be particularly easy for wedge issues. But I'd critique the usefulness of defining "unbiased" as "biased equally in both directions". It would seem that the absolute value of bias would be more useful in determining whether a source contains bias. If you are looking for a balanced discussion between Republican and Democratic viewpoints, then this study represents a useful measure.
I know it's not popular to try and approach things as scientifically as possible, but in this case they describe their methodology in the original paper.
In simple terms, they identify text samples which express either a Republican or a Democratic view, and then tally them up.
This seems like a more disciplined approach than asking one's friends what they think.
I'm weird, I'll grant you that - but for work, I have no problem dropping $2k on a tool. For play, I can't justify $600 for a phone. I generally keep it under $200 - currently I'm using a fire-sale Fire Phone that was effectively free because it came with a year of Prime (to which I already subscribe).
Your phone likely uses microSD, in which case you need an adapter anyway. I can't speak to the ebook reader or console game, since my Kindle connects via USB and my only consoles are too old to communicate with anything.
I don't understand the criticism in this case. Who uses SD cards? Photographers? Where is the use case that they are lugging around a DSLR, lenses, lights, tripods, and a laptop but are really put out by the SD reader?
Password Managers, by design, serve the function of reducing your security.
That's too simplistic. They can both increase your security and decrease other aspects at the same time. If they make it feasible to have different login credentials for every site, that will increase your security. Since they also create a single point of failure to your entire kingdom, that will decrease your security.
Here's my analysis - please point out any logical flaw: if I use the same credentials on many web sites, an attack on a single web site is just as damaging as someone installing a keylogger on my PC/phone. By using a password manager, I can use a different set of credentials for the hundreds of different sites that I use, making me immune to any one of them being hacked. The single point of failure makes it slightly easier for a hacker to gain access to any of those sites, but I'm not sure I lose any security in practical terms because if they have a way to extract my memorized password, they can just wait patiently for me to access the target website, or they can any other passwords that I type for other sites - knowing that there will likely be some overlap.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a French press, an automatic drip, and an espresso machine. I like all of them, and the fancy strikes me for different styles at different times. The automatic drip is my usual choice when I want to drink a whole bunch of coffee over the duration of a morning. Your user ID is lower than mine - surely you are too old for these hipster pissing contests? Just drink what you like.
OK, but you still can't ignore the direct harm of the car-on-human impact. If that relatively easy-to-measure number is up, then the ephemeral has to take a back seat. In short, if the cost of quieter streets is a 20% greater pedestrian accident rate... no thanks.
Now we may be pulled over for not making enough noise.
Haha, that would be worth the story the first time it happens.
I'm taking the word of the experts that the danger is higher with electric cars because of their silence. I don't think they are asking for more noise than already exists from ICE cars, so you won't be disrupting the quiet on the street.
If these things ever become economical, mine will make the Knight Rider noise.
What is "fair"? I suspect the answer depends on who you ask.
On the desktop, you can use the free "Spotify" application or web interface. You can also simply download the tracks, legally or otherwise. I'm not sure there's a problem that needs to be solved here. Many of those YouTube videos have no real video data anyway - they are either a static picture or a bit of text for lyrics and compress to almost nothing.
Agreed - it seems like an unfair criticism of a useful feature.
So was your comment sarcastic or not? I thought you were being serious - that people considered Newton's laws "settled". That's why I pointed out that Einstein provided examples of how they were incomplete over 100 years ago. If you were sarcastically critiquing the article, I apologize - I misunderstood your sarcasm.
I thought the science was settled on Newton's laws...
Is this post from 1905?
I think I agree with everything you wrote. My initial reply in this thread was to someone (Wycliffe) claiming that, hey, my friends don't think Fox is biased! So please read it from within that context... I didn't mean to give the study too much credit - but it's a hell of a lot more rigorous than an informal recollection of past conversations with friends :)
I think you inadvertently just provided a demonstration of how the author's methodology can work: someone authors a bullshit list, and then you (the third party) can analyze it and tell how biased it is one way or another. For your critical analogy to hold up, I would need to accept that Wikipedia has a limited subset of topics such that it can have a bias through simple omission. Wikipedia is slightly more complete than your standard internet meme :)
It sounds like you want a semantic argument over the word "balanced". I'm not really interested in that. The authors explicitly lay out their methodology, so there isn't really any ambiguity here - "balanced" in this context is simply +1 point for a Republican viewpoint and -1 for a Democratic viewpoint. I think repeating the study with different criteria would be very interesting - in your case, classing stuff by what philosophy it falls into. I'm partial to the scientific method, myself, so it would be interesting to see how biased Wikipedia is towards science.
That part seems relatively easy - just follow the platform and highlight parts that differ. This would be particularly easy for wedge issues. But I'd critique the usefulness of defining "unbiased" as "biased equally in both directions". It would seem that the absolute value of bias would be more useful in determining whether a source contains bias. If you are looking for a balanced discussion between Republican and Democratic viewpoints, then this study represents a useful measure.
I know it's not popular to try and approach things as scientifically as possible, but in this case they describe their methodology in the original paper.
In simple terms, they identify text samples which express either a Republican or a Democratic view, and then tally them up.
This seems like a more disciplined approach than asking one's friends what they think.
Nonsense. I long ago developed non-detectible malware, but I can't prove it because you can't detect it.
Yeah, learning sucks! Fuck the elite learned fat-cats! When has science ever benefited society?
It's mixed with all of the links that were reported at one time. Chances are pretty good that there were Star Trek links in the same document.
Don't forget to scroll to the bottom and open up the Lumen complaints! Those have some really nice juicy links, pre-vetted by the copyright holders.
I'm weird, I'll grant you that - but for work, I have no problem dropping $2k on a tool. For play, I can't justify $600 for a phone. I generally keep it under $200 - currently I'm using a fire-sale Fire Phone that was effectively free because it came with a year of Prime (to which I already subscribe).
Your phone likely uses microSD, in which case you need an adapter anyway. I can't speak to the ebook reader or console game, since my Kindle connects via USB and my only consoles are too old to communicate with anything.
Are they cheaper or faster than USB sticks or something?
I don't understand the criticism in this case. Who uses SD cards? Photographers? Where is the use case that they are lugging around a DSLR, lenses, lights, tripods, and a laptop but are really put out by the SD reader?
Password Managers, by design, serve the function of reducing your security.
That's too simplistic. They can both increase your security and decrease other aspects at the same time. If they make it feasible to have different login credentials for every site, that will increase your security. Since they also create a single point of failure to your entire kingdom, that will decrease your security.
Here's my analysis - please point out any logical flaw: if I use the same credentials on many web sites, an attack on a single web site is just as damaging as someone installing a keylogger on my PC/phone. By using a password manager, I can use a different set of credentials for the hundreds of different sites that I use, making me immune to any one of them being hacked. The single point of failure makes it slightly easier for a hacker to gain access to any of those sites, but I'm not sure I lose any security in practical terms because if they have a way to extract my memorized password, they can just wait patiently for me to access the target website, or they can any other passwords that I type for other sites - knowing that there will likely be some overlap.
I've been undermining your efforts by spinning the knob the other way. Hey, I have potential beachfront property here up on the hill.