"Science as a tool is often useful........science as an institution is always problematic." She is trying to seize control of the institutions of science, and may be ignorant of its use as a tool.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
Scientists, for at least half a century, were really big on social darwinism. That meant the scientific community would just assume black people were dumber, or Poles were naturally servile or whatever based on speculation. If there were any doubts, you could always cite some social scientist who did a study to 'prove' it. WW2 ended all that, but you can still see remnants with books like "The Bell Curve" or James Watson's fairly recent racist comments.
Science is hard, doing good science is harder (we can see this because of numerous mistakes in scientific papers), and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all. Because of this, there is a lot of space where we don't clearly know the answer, but unscrupulous people can take advantage of this and make it look like the science supports their agenda. It's hard to say, "We don't know" and it's hard to hear it.
Flynn is just another example. People think he's in some conspiracy so Russians can win the election for Donald, but the reality is he's part of a very serious problem of venality in the top echelon of military leadership. Fat Leonard is just one part of it. That's what real problems look like.
It's a good interview, the man is clear-minded and his ideas are still worth hearing. He focuses on networks, of course, since that is his interest. I like his quote about what drew him to programming:
The thing that was the most attractive was that you could create your own little world inside the computer, and it would do what you wanted it to do. I found that ultimately beguiling Something that would happen in a machine in one place caused something to happen thousands of miles away and that was very interesting, too.
The problem with optical counting machines (I assume you mean hand-filled ballots) is that people are more likely to make mistakes when filling them in. "Hanging chads" and all that.
Your comment should be modded up a thousand times, then printed out and mailed to every elected official and non elected official in the world. Bashar al-Assad should get a copy of your post. The sooner we get to voting machines being built (and required) the way you describe, the better off we'll be.
Probably the biggest source of propaganda came during the 2007 TARP. If the American people did not bail out the banks who had been holding CMOs, the economy would be devastated.
This one really gets my goat. The big banks got off so easy at the expense of taxpayers. Then they lobbied so successfully for Dodd-Frank that it became a present wrapped for them in a bow.
It is a point worth considering: if Russia were setting up an astroturfing campaign, would it be easier to do from a comfortable office building in Moscow, or from a wart-torn battleground in Ukraine?
Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:
No. I'm going to point out that you fell for the exact trick the article wanted you to do, and mixed up phishing, hacking, and atro-turfing. The article purposely conflates those, but you did it accidentally. You need to turn off your emotions and turn on your brain. This article is attempting to deceive you.
I'll give you another hint: when it says "successfully infiltrated a social media group" what it means is "signed up for an account."
Slashdot Mirror
"Science as a tool is often useful........science as an institution is always problematic." She is trying to seize control of the institutions of science, and may be ignorant of its use as a tool.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
Scientists, for at least half a century, were really big on social darwinism. That meant the scientific community would just assume black people were dumber, or Poles were naturally servile or whatever based on speculation. If there were any doubts, you could always cite some social scientist who did a study to 'prove' it. WW2 ended all that, but you can still see remnants with books like "The Bell Curve" or James Watson's fairly recent racist comments.
Science is hard, doing good science is harder (we can see this because of numerous mistakes in scientific papers), and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all. Because of this, there is a lot of space where we don't clearly know the answer, but unscrupulous people can take advantage of this and make it look like the science supports their agenda. It's hard to say, "We don't know" and it's hard to hear it.
You can define it in Global and then call it like this:
Global.function();
You make a mark on the ballot and as long as it is distinct that one can infer your intent,
You don't see potential problems with that?
They emphasize to make a clear mark to show intent
They emphasize it because people mess it up.
Who's complaining?
Shucks. I should have used emacs and I would have been smarter. And freer.
Flynn is just another example. People think he's in some conspiracy so Russians can win the election for Donald, but the reality is he's part of a very serious problem of venality in the top echelon of military leadership. Fat Leonard is just one part of it. That's what real problems look like.
Ozymandias shouldn't have used MS Word.
Proprietary formats are against Osiris' will.
The thing that was the most attractive was that you could create your own little world inside the computer, and it would do what you wanted it to do. I found that ultimately beguiling Something that would happen in a machine in one place caused something to happen thousands of miles away and that was very interesting, too.
I notice that despite going on for two paragraphs, you didn't actually disagree with him. You sound very emotional.
The problem with optical counting machines (I assume you mean hand-filled ballots) is that people are more likely to make mistakes when filling them in. "Hanging chads" and all that.
Your comment should be modded up a thousand times, then printed out and mailed to every elected official and non elected official in the world. Bashar al-Assad should get a copy of your post. The sooner we get to voting machines being built (and required) the way you describe, the better off we'll be.
I see this as an attempt from the Texas state legislature to poke the Austin 'weirdos' (from their perspective) in the eye. "Haha nice try guys!"
Because the person who can use the language today is more valuable than the person who can use the language in three months.
C and C++ coders will soon be as obsolete as Cobol programmers. "The entire world has gone to Java or .Net.
My God, no! I'd rather program in brainfuck
Block every port.
that the biggest threat to Democracy spreading in the world for the past 100+ years or so has in fact been U.S. intervention in the regions
I'd like to see the analysis behind that, given that it's been fairly effective in spreading democracy.......
In fairness, the bricks could part of the Kremlin. They are fairly close, as can be seen in this image.
If only I'd written it on twitter instead, I could have made the evening news. :(
The worst of it is on K street, where the people who actually win don't care who won the election. They donate to both sides.
Now hold up a mirror and do a similar analysis of positions you do like. You do a good job deconstructing groups you don't like.
Probably the biggest source of propaganda came during the 2007 TARP. If the American people did not bail out the banks who had been holding CMOs, the economy would be devastated.
This one really gets my goat. The big banks got off so easy at the expense of taxpayers. Then they lobbied so successfully for Dodd-Frank that it became a present wrapped for them in a bow.
It is a point worth considering: if Russia were setting up an astroturfing campaign, would it be easier to do from a comfortable office building in Moscow, or from a wart-torn battleground in Ukraine?
Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:
No. I'm going to point out that you fell for the exact trick the article wanted you to do, and mixed up phishing, hacking, and atro-turfing. The article purposely conflates those, but you did it accidentally. You need to turn off your emotions and turn on your brain. This article is attempting to deceive you.
I'll give you another hint: when it says "successfully infiltrated a social media group" what it means is "signed up for an account."
Heh TFA says "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources"
If that is truly the goal of Russian hackers, then they are doing us a favor.
Now if only we can get people to doubt news sources they agree with.