It's because he doesn't understand what the word "racist" actually means. This is quite common over here. As far as many people understand, "racist" is just an insult word thrown around by liberals, that just means "you're a bad person". There's some vague understanding that it often crops up around matters of race but that's about as far as it goes.
I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.
I like the sky being light at night when I'm awake. I don't like it being light at 5am when I'm trying to sleep to a reasonable time before getting up for work.
but the browser engine is really just an implementation of the HTML standard
Maybe not for much longer. It's only a practical standard if there are multiple implementations of it. There are now twoindependent ones remaining, and a concerted effort from varous parties to get rid of the second.
wouldn't really make any difference if they switched from Gecko to Blink, in fact I doubt anybody would even notice.
People want a faster browser. That's something they care about. Firefox these days is more responsive on modern machines because it makes better use of multiple cores. That's all down to the new language. People don't care directly, but they certainly care about the implications.
It was also pointless on Mozillas part. Google didn't need to do it and they are eating their lunch.
Ah yes, Mozilla should have spent their money on becoming the world's largest adversiser so they could use some sweet mononpoly abuse in order to get dominance in the browser market.
their browser wouldn't suck?
That series of ads google ran on their home page about Chrome being faster. They really stuck with you it seems.
There's no point building your own standards-compliant HTML engine when you can just use and contribute to a collaborative one that way you know the software and services you build for your browser will run on others too.
For most people no.
For Microsoft, I htink this is a mistake, personally. I mean they're one of the largest companies in the world. They can certainly afford to do so by scraping some change out of the back of Bill's old sofa.
Given how strategically important it is, and they they have integrated browser rengering all over their OS, it seems an odd choice to me to not keep control of it. Thinking in terms of years rather thna quarters that is.
Mozilla has rested stubbornly on their laurels for 20 years.
And by stubbonly resting on their laurels you mean creating an entirely new language and surrounding ecosystem for the sole purpose of being able to write a stable multithreaded browser engine.
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer,
Then buy it from somewhere else like staples or walmart, or the manufacturer directly.
and has bought all the town squares?
If your elected representatives sell off the town squares, democracy is already dead, and you'd be screwed with or without Amazon.
else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before
You don't have a right to an audience. You have a right to speak, and people have a right to listen but you have never, ever had the right to force others to listen or to carry your speech.
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
No, you're really not. Because it didn't go down anything like what you're saying. What's happening in practice is that as soon as someone uses their constitutionally-granted free speech to criticise, you lose your shit, your brain shuts down and you start squawking mindlessly about censorship.
What actually happened was this:
A representative wrote an open letter to amazon.
OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING USING FREE SPEECH WILL END FREE SPEECH EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
Oh and drop your "bookstore" narrative. Amazon is accepting money to advertise which puts them in a whole different category and is actively recommending these anti-vax books. A congresscritter has an absolute right to question a company that is doing something demonstrably harmful.
And we don't need pro censorship people trying to fear-silence people into not using their free speech simply because you don't like what you believe they said, not that you could be arsed to even read TFA to find out.
It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them.
Not really a useful statistic without the comparable one about how often driver kill themselves through inattentiveness and the autopolit saves them. The trouble with the latter is it looks like absolutely nothing happened and no one notices them.
Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.
That's a bit one sided. Last week there were 35 deaths in the UK on the roads caused by good old-fashioned human drivers.
Self driving cars are *never* going to be perfect. And they're going to make mistakes that a fully alert, attentive, skilled driver would never make. But overall how many drivers are any of those things? What about all those overconfident[*], sleep deprived drivers yelling at their kids?
What you never hear of is the time when the human driver would have got decapitated by a trailer due to not watching the road, but the autopilot didn't make a mistake and everyone carried on as normal not noticing.
Statistics will tell us if self driving cars or even autopilots are better than human drivers. I *strongly* suspect they are. Every time I venture on to the road and encounter the usual array of the clueless, the careless, the phone-users, boy racers, texters, fuckwits, arsholes, dickheads, white van men, and Audi drivers I can't help thinking that even crappy autonomous cars would be a step up.
Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake,
In hindsight perhaps? In practice it does much of what an autopilot does. You set it, and it basically flies/drives the thing for you except you're supposed to be paying attention and in control all the time, it can't do every situation and you're meant to take over if things get too hard. Apparently though most people don't know what autopilots in aircraft do.
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "thoughtcrime" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
Crank movements existed long before the internet and the ability that gives to reach a huge audience with little effort. They still had their free speech then and they still have it now. They can still self-publish pamphlets, speak in the town square promoting their crankery. They can even set up a website and there are even webhosts dedicated to hosting literally anything protected under the first amendment (such as Dreamhost, no affiliation except being a happy customer).
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
That's the most ludicrously over-entitled reading I think I've ever heard of free speech. No, you don't have the right to force others to help you monetize your cranky views.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
No it doesn't. There has never been a time when private vendors have ever stocked all books regardless of their content. To claim it "sets a precedent" is to ignore all of history.
For someone who claims you like freeze peach so much you sure don't like it when someone uses tiers to disagree with you.
Yes UKIP and the Tory party spread misinformation. That's not really up for debate unless you deny reality.
I do like how you spin anyone disagreeing with you as being against free speech. Free speech means you are free to lie. Free speech means I'm free to call you out when you do so.
Essentially, the education system has told a generation (or two now) that evidence doesna(TM)t matter. You dona(TM)t have to be correct, rigorous or diligent in working out what the hell is going on; you just have to express yourself, be confident in your conviction and never let anyone tell you youa(TM)re wrong.
I think you are looking at history through rose-tinted glasses. It's not like the 1950s, or the Victorian eras were the pinnacles of reason.
The Victorian approach to education for example was to declare "facts" which may or may not have been completely wrong and could well have been based on a fetishisation of Antiquity, then hit you with a stick until you parroted them.
Many of those "facts" survived a long time. Like the "fact" that the wheel is the greatest invention because there's no way that's an opinion or up for debate, and I seem to remember tht was in it's final muted death throes by the 1980s.
So, now we arrive at a position where pseudoscience is running rampant,
Is it more rampant than before? There's always been lots of pseudoscience.
people arena(TM)t equipped with the critical thinking skills to delve deep and discern fact from fiction and relevance from irrelevance, and therea(TM)s an overwhelming attitude of opinion being the gold standard,
It covers that fairly thoroghly and provides a solid skewing of social media. except it's from 1909. I think we can take it from that that these concerns and so behaviours are not new.
Critical thinking though be core in education, and everyone should be taught to debate.
Critical thinking certainly should yes. Debating well people should be taught about debating, to spot rhetorical tricks certainly. Being able to debate live isn't necessary to be able ot dissect a transcript after and spot the holes. I think the latter is more important than the former.
what's actually a really good summary of the history of the periodic table.
I thought so too! Sort of makes me wonder how on earth they isolated elements without knowing either what they were looking for or having sophisticated equipment. I would love to read a longer history that went into all those nerdy details, plus the dead ends and partial discoveries.
Tell you what you read the article and I'll fuck off. Since I know you're pathologically opposed to doing that (because hey you might be wrong and we can't be having with that), I think I'll stick around.
How on earth is the Economist supposed to be responsible for a summary of an article on a third party website? They're not but to admit so would spoil your delightfully righteous rage.
Why should I read an article about chemistry (or economics) in the Economist?
Because it is informative, interesting and well written.
It's kind of funny. You're incredibly angry about a summary someone posted and refuse to read the article which would show you that you're in fact making the wrong judgement of the article about it's summary.
Never, ever let the facts get in the way of a REALLY good hatefest.
Slashdot Mirror
now I know you're trolling. Joe Rogan? And what do pronouns have to do with literally _anything_. Come on, I expect better bait.
It's ironic that his bait isn't very good since he's clearly a bit of a master baiter.
They record every keystroke. Even what you type and delete is kept for eternity.
I dislike facebook as much as the next nerd (and no I don't use it), but this sounds a bit like tinfoil hattery.
Why is it always racism with you?
It's because he doesn't understand what the word "racist" actually means. This is quite common over here. As far as many people understand, "racist" is just an insult word thrown around by liberals, that just means "you're a bad person". There's some vague understanding that it often crops up around matters of race but that's about as far as it goes.
This is officially the most snowflake story I have ever seen on SlashDot. Are you serious? Good grief, you kids all need to be spanked.
This is the most slashdot ever answer. World throws up results you don't like? Just beat people until they start denying reality. Problem solved!
>>And detecting gestures of police officers or other personnel directing traffic also needs to work regardless of their skin color.
>Exactly, so SKIN COLOR DOES NOT MATTER.
My god you're desparate. Skin colour must not be a factor, therefore it isn't a factor. Checkmate liberals!
I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.
I like the sky being light at night when I'm awake. I don't like it being light at 5am when I'm trying to sleep to a reasonable time before getting up for work.
but the browser engine is really just an implementation of the HTML standard
Maybe not for much longer. It's only a practical standard if there are multiple implementations of it. There are now twoindependent ones remaining, and a concerted effort from varous parties to get rid of the second.
wouldn't really make any difference if they switched from Gecko to Blink, in fact I doubt anybody would even notice.
Well, it'd be slower. People might notice that.
No one cares that they wrote a new language.
People want a faster browser. That's something they care about. Firefox these days is more responsive on modern machines because it makes better use of multiple cores. That's all down to the new language. People don't care directly, but they certainly care about the implications.
It was also pointless on Mozillas part. Google didn't need to do it and they are eating their lunch.
Ah yes, Mozilla should have spent their money on becoming the world's largest adversiser so they could use some sweet mononpoly abuse in order to get dominance in the browser market.
their browser wouldn't suck?
That series of ads google ran on their home page about Chrome being faster. They really stuck with you it seems.
But where did you manage to find a hose and a rubber chicken at this hour?
Depends. Does it have to have a pulley in the middle, or will a regular one do?
There's no point building your own standards-compliant HTML engine when you can just use and contribute to a collaborative one that way you know the software and services you build for your browser will run on others too.
For most people no.
For Microsoft, I htink this is a mistake, personally. I mean they're one of the largest companies in the world. They can certainly afford to do so by scraping some change out of the back of Bill's old sofa.
Given how strategically important it is, and they they have integrated browser rengering all over their OS, it seems an odd choice to me to not keep control of it. Thinking in terms of years rather thna quarters that is.
Mozilla has rested stubbornly on their laurels for 20 years.
And by stubbonly resting on their laurels you mean creating an entirely new language and surrounding ecosystem for the sole purpose of being able to write a stable multithreaded browser engine.
Something which no one else managed.
That's pretty much the polar opposite of resting.
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer,
Then buy it from somewhere else like staples or walmart, or the manufacturer directly.
and has bought all the town squares?
If your elected representatives sell off the town squares, democracy is already dead, and you'd be screwed with or without Amazon.
else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before
You don't have a right to an audience. You have a right to speak, and people have a right to listen but you have never, ever had the right to force others to listen or to carry your speech.
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
No, you're really not. Because it didn't go down anything like what you're saying. What's happening in practice is that as soon as someone uses their constitutionally-granted free speech to criticise, you lose your shit, your brain shuts down and you start squawking mindlessly about censorship.
What actually happened was this:
A representative wrote an open letter to amazon.
OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING USING FREE SPEECH WILL END FREE SPEECH EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
Oh and drop your "bookstore" narrative. Amazon is accepting money to advertise which puts them in a whole different category and is actively recommending these anti-vax books. A congresscritter has an absolute right to question a company that is doing something demonstrably harmful.
And we don't need pro censorship people trying to fear-silence people into not using their free speech simply because you don't like what you believe they said, not that you could be arsed to even read TFA to find out.
It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them.
Not really a useful statistic without the comparable one about how often driver kill themselves through inattentiveness and the autopolit saves them. The trouble with the latter is it looks like absolutely nothing happened and no one notices them.
Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.
That's a bit one sided. Last week there were 35 deaths in the UK on the roads caused by good old-fashioned human drivers.
Self driving cars are *never* going to be perfect. And they're going to make mistakes that a fully alert, attentive, skilled driver would never make. But overall how many drivers are any of those things? What about all those overconfident[*], sleep deprived drivers yelling at their kids?
What you never hear of is the time when the human driver would have got decapitated by a trailer due to not watching the road, but the autopilot didn't make a mistake and everyone carried on as normal not noticing.
Statistics will tell us if self driving cars or even autopilots are better than human drivers. I *strongly* suspect they are. Every time I venture on to the road and encounter the usual array of the clueless, the careless, the phone-users, boy racers, texters, fuckwits, arsholes, dickheads, white van men, and Audi drivers I can't help thinking that even crappy autonomous cars would be a step up.
Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake,
In hindsight perhaps? In practice it does much of what an autopilot does. You set it, and it basically flies/drives the thing for you except you're supposed to be paying attention and in control all the time, it can't do every situation and you're meant to take over if things get too hard. Apparently though most people don't know what autopilots in aircraft do.
[*]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability
Da, comrade we do.
You have been a good little slodier, so go and collect your rubles from uncle Vlad.
Proshchay!
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
Because if you don't have the right to sell your free speech works for money then you don't have any kind of free speech at all. /s
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "thoughtcrime" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
Crank movements existed long before the internet and the ability that gives to reach a huge audience with little effort. They still had their free speech then and they still have it now. They can still self-publish pamphlets, speak in the town square promoting their crankery. They can even set up a website and there are even webhosts dedicated to hosting literally anything protected under the first amendment (such as Dreamhost, no affiliation except being a happy customer).
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
That's the most ludicrously over-entitled reading I think I've ever heard of free speech. No, you don't have the right to force others to help you monetize your cranky views.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
No it doesn't. There has never been a time when private vendors have ever stocked all books regardless of their content. To claim it "sets a precedent" is to ignore all of history.
For someone who claims you like freeze peach so much you sure don't like it when someone uses tiers to disagree with you.
Yes UKIP and the Tory party spread misinformation. That's not really up for debate unless you deny reality.
I do like how you spin anyone disagreeing with you as being against free speech. Free speech means you are free to lie. Free speech means I'm free to call you out when you do so.
So it is more like a one time table then?
aperiodic table.
Is UKIP saying "Britain will be better off after Brexit" disinformation?
Is the claim that GBP350 million a week would go to the NHS disinformation? Yes as it happens. It was a bald-faced lie.
Farage made an almost identical claim (55 million per day) which was also a bald-faced lie.
These are not subjective opinions. You can literally count the net flow of money from the UK to the EU, and it is not those numbers.
So yes it was demonstrably misinformation.
Is Trump saying "some illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes
That's a pretty strong misrepresentation of Trump's overally position. I can see why you don't like disinformation being pointed out.
Essentially, the education system has told a generation (or two now) that evidence doesna(TM)t matter. You dona(TM)t have to be correct, rigorous or diligent in working out what the hell is going on; you just have to express yourself, be confident in your conviction and never let anyone tell you youa(TM)re wrong.
I think you are looking at history through rose-tinted glasses. It's not like the 1950s, or the Victorian eras were the pinnacles of reason.
The Victorian approach to education for example was to declare "facts" which may or may not have been completely wrong and could well have been based on a fetishisation of Antiquity, then hit you with a stick until you parroted them.
Many of those "facts" survived a long time. Like the "fact" that the wheel is the greatest invention because there's no way that's an opinion or up for debate, and I seem to remember tht was in it's final muted death throes by the 1980s.
So, now we arrive at a position where pseudoscience is running rampant,
Is it more rampant than before? There's always been lots of pseudoscience.
people arena(TM)t equipped with the critical thinking skills to delve deep and discern fact from fiction and relevance from irrelevance, and therea(TM)s an overwhelming attitude of opinion being the gold standard,
I encourage you to read this story: http://central.gutenberg.org/a...
It covers that fairly thoroghly and provides a solid skewing of social media. except it's from 1909. I think we can take it from that that these concerns and so behaviours are not new.
Critical thinking though be core in education, and everyone should be taught to debate.
Critical thinking certainly should yes. Debating well people should be taught about debating, to spot rhetorical tricks certainly. Being able to debate live isn't necessary to be able ot dissect a transcript after and spot the holes. I think the latter is more important than the former.
what's actually a really good summary of the history of the periodic table.
I thought so too! Sort of makes me wonder how on earth they isolated elements without knowing either what they were looking for or having sophisticated equipment. I would love to read a longer history that went into all those nerdy details, plus the dead ends and partial discoveries.
Tell you what you read the article and I'll fuck off. Since I know you're pathologically opposed to doing that (because hey you might be wrong and we can't be having with that), I think I'll stick around.
Read the fucking summary and get back to me.
RRAAAAAGGGGEEEE!!!
How on earth is the Economist supposed to be responsible for a summary of an article on a third party website? They're not but to admit so would spoil your delightfully righteous rage.
Why should I read an article about chemistry (or economics) in the Economist?
Because it is informative, interesting and well written.
It's kind of funny. You're incredibly angry about a summary someone posted and refuse to read the article which would show you that you're in fact making the wrong judgement of the article about it's summary.
Never, ever let the facts get in the way of a REALLY good hatefest.