Nah. Vaccines were opposed since their creation. In the early 1900s, after people got vaccinated, some of them would try to suck the vaccine out of the blood system.
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
The fact that Zuckerberg's particular set of talents happen to be financially lucrative does not automatically make him more extraordinary than anyone else with a different set of talents.
Which particular talents are you talking about? Effectively stealing ideas from other people?
100% of Slashdotters have been harassed online. And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit.
There. It's back at 100%.
Not many people paid it. Joe DiMaggio had to pay it because he couldn't find a loophole. Here are some good numbers, although framed in a polemic.
In 1958...according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)
And whoever told you that people didn't offshore their money in the 50s is lying to you through their teeth.
That was kind of the point. You don't _want_ that many people making that kind of money.
They were making that kind of money. Now you're just talking like the ignorant democrats I hate. You didn't look it up, you just kind of 'guessed' or something. There were loopholes and the only people who couldn't get around it were athletes and entertainers (but I repeat myself).
False equivalency? Who made an equivalency? I said both sides are dumb, and they are. They're also as corrupt as sin, and if you can't see the corruption, you're blind as a brick.
Currently living in China as an expat and it's surprisingly easy to live with the level of censorship in place here......... Almost all mainstream western social media are blocked
Actually the progressives would be a lot more realistic if they demonstrated understanding of the concept of incentives. If you tax something, you get less of it, minimum wages reduce employment (something that the vast majority of scientists agree on), etc. Which isn't to say we shouldn't increase the minimum wage, but at least be aware of the tradeoff you're making.
OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality.
Shit dude, you ain't been reading what your favored politicians actually say. "Legitimate rape" and all that. "Repeal Obamacare" then they can't actually do it. What a joke!
Inflation is a general increase in prices and a fall in the purchasing power of money. Again: that differs from region to region, from product to product, and even from store to store.
You're getting confounding factors confused with the actual thing. It is easy to get it confused: when inflation is low, then a great crop of strawberries will affect the price of strawberries more than any monetary policy (which is what we want, ideally). When monetary policy is bad, inflation is high, then it's easier to separate from confounding factors. When inflation is at 50% YOY, then you still have a measurement error, but the inflation is obvious.
Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.
Lately I have a modicum of respect for single-issue voters: at least they know what they want and are a force in actually achieving it.
Most voters seem to be zero-issue voters: they see the election as kind of a team sport, and want to be on the winning side. They will happily change their opinions on various issues (sometimes with a twisted justification, sometimes not) to help support their team. Others will happily switch between sides, enjoying the feeling that both teams are trying to win their vote. It's not about the issues.
I swear conservatives are stupider than fucking rocks.
At one point in my life, I was trying to decide which party to join. I would think something like, "you know, I like the conservative philosophy: do things that create jobs." Then I would start listening to actual Republicans, and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That guy literally said all he wants is tax cuts for the rich." Then I would switch to the Democrat party.
Soon I would start listening to actual Democratic politicians and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That politician actually said we can all have free X without paying for it." Then I would switch back to Republicans.
After I switched back and forth enough times, I gave up and became independent. I fully disrespect both parties, although I've come to realize they do an adequate job representing their voters.
I want to add some analysis here, following the appellate court's ruling in Oracle v Google (if you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend reading it, because it is clear-minded and I fully expect it to set the precedent for software copyright cases for a long, long time).
So, imagine the 'owner' of the Linux kernel sued the customer of Grsecurity. Following OvG, the courts would first apply the Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test to figure out what is infringing. So the question is, what is infringing? After running the AFC test, there is nothing left that the customer doesn't have a license to. The Linux kernel 'owner' has given the end-user the right to use all of his(her) code. There is nothing left that the 'owner' can say that the customer doesn't have a license to.
Now, if the user doesn't have the right to use the code remaining after the AFC test, I would be interested in hearing an argument as to why not.
Slashdot Mirror
If I saw someone using one of these there would definitely be an urge in my gut to punch him in the face.
You have issues, tbh
Are you sure it's peaked?
Nah. Vaccines were opposed since their creation. In the early 1900s, after people got vaccinated, some of them would try to suck the vaccine out of the blood system.
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
The eyes in that post.......
The fact that Zuckerberg's particular set of talents happen to be financially lucrative does not automatically make him more extraordinary than anyone else with a different set of talents.
Which particular talents are you talking about? Effectively stealing ideas from other people?
He actually likes Trump.
He's planning on running for office. If Trump can do it, why can't he?
Sadly, I can't disagree with that argument.
Still better than the zero-issue voters.
100% of Slashdotters have been harassed online. And if you're reading Slashdot, and you haven't been harassed, you're a stupid piece of shit.
There. It's back at 100%.
Yeah. If you call someone an assmonkey, they might vote against you just to spite you.
In 1958...according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)
And whoever told you that people didn't offshore their money in the 50s is lying to you through their teeth.
So which do you think is going to happen first, cutting Obamacare, or tax cuts for the rich?
Betcha it's tax cuts for the rich.
Recently, I've been telling anyone saying "no proof!" that "There is proof, it's just above your security clearance".
That was the same argument I heard over and over to get us into Iraq. The CIA/FBI/NSA are not trustworthy.
That was kind of the point. You don't _want_ that many people making that kind of money.
They were making that kind of money. Now you're just talking like the ignorant democrats I hate. You didn't look it up, you just kind of 'guessed' or something. There were loopholes and the only people who couldn't get around it were athletes and entertainers (but I repeat myself).
False equivalency? Who made an equivalency? I said both sides are dumb, and they are. They're also as corrupt as sin, and if you can't see the corruption, you're blind as a brick.
We had a 90% marginal tax rate in the 50s and it was the largest period of growth in US History.
How many people paid that tax rate? Hint: not many.
Basically, as long as you're paying attention and careful to adjust as needed and only as needed there are no trade offs
Now you're dreaming.
Everybody deserves a good life.
Hell yeah.
Currently living in China as an expat and it's surprisingly easy to live with the level of censorship in place here......... Almost all mainstream western social media are blocked
Be honest.....that's actually super annoying.
Actually the progressives would be a lot more realistic if they demonstrated understanding of the concept of incentives. If you tax something, you get less of it, minimum wages reduce employment (something that the vast majority of scientists agree on), etc. Which isn't to say we shouldn't increase the minimum wage, but at least be aware of the tradeoff you're making.
OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality.
Shit dude, you ain't been reading what your favored politicians actually say. "Legitimate rape" and all that. "Repeal Obamacare" then they can't actually do it. What a joke!
Inflation is a general increase in prices and a fall in the purchasing power of money. Again: that differs from region to region, from product to product, and even from store to store.
You're getting confounding factors confused with the actual thing. It is easy to get it confused: when inflation is low, then a great crop of strawberries will affect the price of strawberries more than any monetary policy (which is what we want, ideally). When monetary policy is bad, inflation is high, then it's easier to separate from confounding factors. When inflation is at 50% YOY, then you still have a measurement error, but the inflation is obvious.
Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.
I support this.
Lately I have a modicum of respect for single-issue voters: at least they know what they want and are a force in actually achieving it.
Most voters seem to be zero-issue voters: they see the election as kind of a team sport, and want to be on the winning side. They will happily change their opinions on various issues (sometimes with a twisted justification, sometimes not) to help support their team. Others will happily switch between sides, enjoying the feeling that both teams are trying to win their vote. It's not about the issues.
I swear conservatives are stupider than fucking rocks.
At one point in my life, I was trying to decide which party to join. I would think something like, "you know, I like the conservative philosophy: do things that create jobs." Then I would start listening to actual Republicans, and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That guy literally said all he wants is tax cuts for the rich." Then I would switch to the Democrat party.
Soon I would start listening to actual Democratic politicians and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That politician actually said we can all have free X without paying for it." Then I would switch back to Republicans.
After I switched back and forth enough times, I gave up and became independent. I fully disrespect both parties, although I've come to realize they do an adequate job representing their voters.
I want to add some analysis here, following the appellate court's ruling in Oracle v Google (if you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend reading it, because it is clear-minded and I fully expect it to set the precedent for software copyright cases for a long, long time).
So, imagine the 'owner' of the Linux kernel sued the customer of Grsecurity. Following OvG, the courts would first apply the Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test to figure out what is infringing. So the question is, what is infringing? After running the AFC test, there is nothing left that the customer doesn't have a license to. The Linux kernel 'owner' has given the end-user the right to use all of his(her) code. There is nothing left that the 'owner' can say that the customer doesn't have a license to.
Now, if the user doesn't have the right to use the code remaining after the AFC test, I would be interested in hearing an argument as to why not.