So, scientists should just not observe the CH bond in molecular clouds, which has spectral lines at 3.4 GHZ because tourists want to gab on their phones?
There's no question that the telescope needs a quiet space around it and needs to only be filtered based upon what it's looking at. But I think they might need to consider a "tourist area" which happens to be an RF absorbing cage. Having a terrestrial telescope does come with a few built in disadvantages. When it's also expensive and disruptive, that baggage gets worse. People are going to be suspicious about what their already pretty shady government is up to with their money.
This is there ultimate goal. The left wants people in chains.
The left wants people in chains. The right wants to put them there (or keep them there).
The rest of us realize everyone that matters is in chains already and always have been, the only thing we want is to work on how comfortable they are. The ones not in chains should never be taken seriously, they are either insane, criminal, or some form of dead weight.
I think the problem is using the world "science" next to the word "social". It should be "social studies" or "emotional groupthink" or "mind studies" or something along those lines.
Whatever the dictionary says about science, the word as used today means "hard sciences" to most people. Psychology, whatever level of validity it may have to it (if any, I have doubts), does not meet any of the criteria sensible people would expect of an actual science. It should not be used in the same way real science is, should never be admissible in court, shouldn't be used to evaluate candidates for a job, or be built into any government effort.
Like sociology, economics, sports and religion it should be talked about loudly, with strong emotion, a lot of alcohol and preferably an environment that can handle a brawl with no more than 1 hour of cleanup afterward and limited access to weaponry.
It's not clear what level of ownership Google should be expected to take on this. It seems to me that they technically did more than I'd feel obligated to in their shoes. Epic appears to have been responsible for the bug, Google appears to have found it for them. Honestly I think they already went the extra mile right there.
Of course if Epic used the app store, then I'd expect a more appropriate arrangement of identification, fix and announcement.
I guess movies that are already on netflix/prime I don't bother looking at rotten tomatoes at all. I've already paid for those services, if I'm bored I'll fire up the movies.
But in terms of actually going to the theater, I always look at RT. I won't see a movie that has no rating, and if its really bad and I'm just not a series fanatic for the movie, I also won't go.
My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.
Plus, turning on a TV show is easy. Just push a button. You didn't spend any money, or even have to leave the couch where you had already planned to spend your time. You didn't have to plan it out, at this moment you decided you have the free time to spend. You are not committed either, you can turn it on, get interrupted and pause it/end it, and resume later.
Movies are big deals, particularly if you are a grown up, even more so if you are married or in a long term relationship, even worst if you have children. You're now talking about blocking out a 2 hr+ portion of your free time, which is a huge commitment on its own, and you have to commit to that 2 hours ahead of time (in the days of recliner seating in movie theaters, often days or even weeks ahead of time). If something comes up you have to make a decision, and that decision might involve flushing the money already spent on the movie. You have to leave your house, another really big deal. You have to go out in public and be around other people, this is more of a problem for some of us than others. And then if and when the movie sucks, you realize that you are out a heap of time and money you won't ever get back.
When you look at the investment you are making just to try out a movie, particularly given that most movies out there right now are beyond awful thanks to the need to capture chinese investment capital and hit a "global market" that may require concessions to the "harmonious society", you really want to be selective.
People want to like things, and there is limited objectivity on ratings. In reality most things should be rated 5. Higher than 5 should be levels of excellence, lower than 5 should be levels of failure. 1 and 10 should be very hard to get. But looking at movies and games, ratings are skewed towards 7 and 8, partly because of $$$ from publishers, partly because we're rating on some emotional consideration. If you give a movie 2/4 stars, or a game a '5' rating, people will assume it is horrible, rather than mediocre.
It's not only OK, it's commendable to break a contract if keeping it involves covering up an illegal (or immoral) act. This was exactly my point.
The law is the lowest bar of morality, in the places where it is even remotely aligned with it. Yes, there are consequences of breaking legal contracts, just as there are to breaking illegal contracts. That's entirely irrelevant, doing what's morally correct anyway is an obligation we all share, and we all shirk ("but it's illegal", "but I have a family", "but I have a life ahead of me", etc.)
I am not sure she made the bar, I think she should have thought about what she had and why she wanted to do what she did before acting, so that she made the right sacrifice for the right reason. If indeed she was just young and idealistic, she should be commended for her spirit, but punished for her sloppy execution. But, going back to the beginning, nothing about law and what is right are related, they are frenemies at best.
Plus about 2/3's of the deaths in young people from alcohol stem from poor and avoidable choices that I do not think should be considered in their recommendations. You have a choice to drink and drive, or to hurt/kill yourself. Alcohol does not trigger some invisible demon to strike you down (such as tuberculosis, which is hidden in the text affecting primarily only poorly developed countries, probably not anyone reading this). So basically alcohol in young people being a relevant cause of death is bullshit, by any reasonable interpretation.
When you examine the over 50 result, there was no control over quantity, and there was a direct correlation between quantity consumed and risk of cancer. There was also no control for other factors (alcohol + acetominophen) for example, that might be responsible for the liver damage.
So basically this whole article appears to be constructed with the mindset of blaming anything where alcohol was involved on alcohol use, for the purpose of highlighting it as a problem. The obvious result is that any use causes death, no shit. So will getting out of bed in the morning and walking down the street for a cup of coffee. Getting in your car has a strong chance of resulting in death or injury. etc. The question is whether alcohol on its own is an issue, and that's not clear from any of this.
I don't know this. There are plenty of legal contracts one might have to the mafia, and they are quite happy to prosecute inside the law as well as outside of it. Some of them have grown a lot from the street gangster days, some are even government officials. The question is when your moral obligations exceed your legal obligations, and it's really not clear in this case. Oaths as extreme as the poster implies are inherently flawed and no one at all should be expected to adhere, and anyone who says they will should never be trusted.
Although this information should be fed to the public, there are some questions I wonder if she considered. First, is the information accurate or deliberate misinformation designed to destabilize (particularly after a bizarre, unexpectedly close, surprise result with significant political fallout). Second, was the information obtained in such a way that it might harm or compromise an operative who is in a precarious situation should anyone find out he is leaking sensitive information. Finally, will releasing this information hinder efforts as part of a larger investigation that she may not be aware of.
She is too low level to have definitive answers to any of these questions, so the question is why did she not trust her chain of command to do the right thing? I think she might have done better work for America if she could demonstrate that her chain of command was compromised, or untrustworthy. If she doesn't actually think any of these things are true, she should actually go to prison, because what she did was in that case, unacceptable.
I am very certain that the USA does do this. So you have to decide who you want to spy on you, or roll your own (in which case, you will certainly add your own backdoors!).
I would rather be spied on by Europe/Australia than China, if anything Europe stays closer to their ideology and would make a good watchdog. China pretty much wants the same evil they do in their own country.
I think it's clear nobody wants to be spied on by Russia.
there is a specific way to do something rather then being able to creatively solve problem
Only if they went to a bad school, and/or are idiots. Their strengths are generally having a good working knowledge of how similar problems were solved in the past, and what was good/bad about them. If they get stuck on that, the problem is not education, it's IQ. The issue I have seen is being overly focused on finding the optimal algorithm, when simple or straight-forward will suffice, and being nerd baited into arguments over how to write good code, versus getting something done on a deadline.
I know I will take heat over that last statement, but let's face it, sometimes you have to do the nasty to pay the bills. Good coders will get rid of that abortion once the storm passes, bad ones just grouch about it until the end of time or carry it forward as a monument to the perceived stupidity of their bosses.
Netflix is increasingly facing an uphill battle against publishers and content owners for rights to stream. Those people are in the process of fragmenting the market into a million different subcription services with maybe one good thing to watch. For companies that broadcast however, you can just sit there with your digital antenna and get their one good show, skip the ads, and say "fuck you" for as long as it lasts.
My recommendation is a good digital antenna for your environment and tablo, if you don't want to DIY and want turnkey. I'm very happy with that solution. Of course if you want to DIY, there are a few options out there and you can save more bucks. I personally found the tablo to cost less than my time investment, and it should work with any other TV streaming device you use (i.e. roku, appletv, whatever).
Voluntary as in it's totally up to you to have this convenience, or else we give you a badge like everyone else, is fine.
Voluntary as in you can take this RFID or you can find another job is not. This is the one I see on the road ahead, and the laws need to get ahead of it. This is voluntary only for lunatics.
If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Competition is a powerful tool, but it requires a referee, and intelligent rules that ensures that competition continues, and that once you have a "winner", another contender can emerge and eat his lunch if he's sleeping. In many cases, we don't have that. Also, unlike sports, you have to consider the well being of the loser, which is where a government focused entirely on capitalism falls short. You want people to play the game, to play hard and ensure there's something to "win", but you don't want your losers to fall out and give up (or just plain die, when applied to real life). You need a safety net.
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism. It is not a perfect system, it has many faults, as does socialism, as does a command economy. The overreaction is in part due to the fact that the US has reached a plateau, that geopolitics is not favoring us significantly and there is a lot less to go around, but also in part to the hard right turn reflected in both parties. We are seeing some facets of socialism that we have had for a long time, that were working amazingly well, get defunded and brutalized for an agenda that doesn't really make any sense. We're also seeing the government move away from the safety net idea that was going to enable us to be competitive globally, shoring up the weaknesses of capitalism, in favor of some very naive and misguided libertarian principles, all while ignoring the very real reality of a global economy, that will succeed no matter what we do.
I don't know what economics courses you took, but when I read about the ISMs, I didn't hear "this is the best and clear winner". What I heard is here is what it does well, here is what it does poorly. Even command economies have strength: no other ism can move and adapt as quickly, no other ism CAN be as skillfully manipulated for a purpose. But of course, the weaknesses are tremendous. It's important to understand these shades, China manipulates all of the isms masterfully, at least in comparison to literally everyone else.
Yea Forcing Diversity in to things at the expense of people that could be more qualified has never been a bad idea.
Well, board members aren't notorious for their qualifications, it is crooked by definition. These are either genuine 1%ers who want to make the case that they actually work for a living, or their representatives. So putting a woman on the board just to have a woman on the board probably doesn't hurt anything that wasn't hurting already. The only real requirement is to be evil, and I believe woman can be just as evil as men.
The offensive part is the government mandate, and government interference in private enterprise when there's no harm to body or property on the line. Further, even if I thought affirmative action were worth government intervention, I would require african americans or hispanics first. Having a whole racial and ethnic demographic denied access to money is far more harmful than a gender, who usually have access, if not via the ideal means.
If you feel threatened by someone knocking on your door when staying in their home, and asking to enter, I do not think anyone is going to have your back when you go to court. There's no clear and present danger, there's no surprise, you're just trying to find an excuse to murder someone.
Don't stay in these hotels is the solution. Even if their cover story of safety is legit, they deserve to lose money to operate under the assumption that anyone at all might be the next mass murderer.
Slashdot Mirror
So, scientists should just not observe the CH bond in molecular clouds, which has spectral lines at 3.4 GHZ because tourists want to gab on their phones?
There's no question that the telescope needs a quiet space around it and needs to only be filtered based upon what it's looking at. But I think they might need to consider a "tourist area" which happens to be an RF absorbing cage. Having a terrestrial telescope does come with a few built in disadvantages. When it's also expensive and disruptive, that baggage gets worse. People are going to be suspicious about what their already pretty shady government is up to with their money.
This.
This is there ultimate goal. The left wants people in chains.
The left wants people in chains. The right wants to put them there (or keep them there).
The rest of us realize everyone that matters is in chains already and always have been, the only thing we want is to work on how comfortable they are. The ones not in chains should never be taken seriously, they are either insane, criminal, or some form of dead weight.
I think the problem is using the world "science" next to the word "social". It should be "social studies" or "emotional groupthink" or "mind studies" or something along those lines.
Whatever the dictionary says about science, the word as used today means "hard sciences" to most people. Psychology, whatever level of validity it may have to it (if any, I have doubts), does not meet any of the criteria sensible people would expect of an actual science. It should not be used in the same way real science is, should never be admissible in court, shouldn't be used to evaluate candidates for a job, or be built into any government effort.
Like sociology, economics, sports and religion it should be talked about loudly, with strong emotion, a lot of alcohol and preferably an environment that can handle a brawl with no more than 1 hour of cleanup afterward and limited access to weaponry.
It's not clear what level of ownership Google should be expected to take on this. It seems to me that they technically did more than I'd feel obligated to in their shoes. Epic appears to have been responsible for the bug, Google appears to have found it for them. Honestly I think they already went the extra mile right there.
Of course if Epic used the app store, then I'd expect a more appropriate arrangement of identification, fix and announcement.
I guess movies that are already on netflix/prime I don't bother looking at rotten tomatoes at all. I've already paid for those services, if I'm bored I'll fire up the movies.
But in terms of actually going to the theater, I always look at RT. I won't see a movie that has no rating, and if its really bad and I'm just not a series fanatic for the movie, I also won't go.
My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.
Plus, turning on a TV show is easy. Just push a button. You didn't spend any money, or even have to leave the couch where you had already planned to spend your time. You didn't have to plan it out, at this moment you decided you have the free time to spend. You are not committed either, you can turn it on, get interrupted and pause it/end it, and resume later.
Movies are big deals, particularly if you are a grown up, even more so if you are married or in a long term relationship, even worst if you have children. You're now talking about blocking out a 2 hr+ portion of your free time, which is a huge commitment on its own, and you have to commit to that 2 hours ahead of time (in the days of recliner seating in movie theaters, often days or even weeks ahead of time). If something comes up you have to make a decision, and that decision might involve flushing the money already spent on the movie. You have to leave your house, another really big deal. You have to go out in public and be around other people, this is more of a problem for some of us than others. And then if and when the movie sucks, you realize that you are out a heap of time and money you won't ever get back.
When you look at the investment you are making just to try out a movie, particularly given that most movies out there right now are beyond awful thanks to the need to capture chinese investment capital and hit a "global market" that may require concessions to the "harmonious society", you really want to be selective.
The people that buy the action figures.
People want to like things, and there is limited objectivity on ratings. In reality most things should be rated 5. Higher than 5 should be levels of excellence, lower than 5 should be levels of failure. 1 and 10 should be very hard to get. But looking at movies and games, ratings are skewed towards 7 and 8, partly because of $$$ from publishers, partly because we're rating on some emotional consideration. If you give a movie 2/4 stars, or a game a '5' rating, people will assume it is horrible, rather than mediocre.
It's not only OK, it's commendable to break a contract if keeping it involves covering up an illegal (or immoral) act.
This was exactly my point.
The law is the lowest bar of morality, in the places where it is even remotely aligned with it. Yes, there are consequences of breaking legal contracts, just as there are to breaking illegal contracts. That's entirely irrelevant, doing what's morally correct anyway is an obligation we all share, and we all shirk ("but it's illegal", "but I have a family", "but I have a life ahead of me", etc.)
I am not sure she made the bar, I think she should have thought about what she had and why she wanted to do what she did before acting, so that she made the right sacrifice for the right reason. If indeed she was just young and idealistic, she should be commended for her spirit, but punished for her sloppy execution. But, going back to the beginning, nothing about law and what is right are related, they are frenemies at best.
Plus about 2/3's of the deaths in young people from alcohol stem from poor and avoidable choices that I do not think should be considered in their recommendations. You have a choice to drink and drive, or to hurt/kill yourself. Alcohol does not trigger some invisible demon to strike you down (such as tuberculosis, which is hidden in the text affecting primarily only poorly developed countries, probably not anyone reading this). So basically alcohol in young people being a relevant cause of death is bullshit, by any reasonable interpretation.
When you examine the over 50 result, there was no control over quantity, and there was a direct correlation between quantity consumed and risk of cancer. There was also no control for other factors (alcohol + acetominophen) for example, that might be responsible for the liver damage.
So basically this whole article appears to be constructed with the mindset of blaming anything where alcohol was involved on alcohol use, for the purpose of highlighting it as a problem. The obvious result is that any use causes death, no shit. So will getting out of bed in the morning and walking down the street for a cup of coffee. Getting in your car has a strong chance of resulting in death or injury. etc. The question is whether alcohol on its own is an issue, and that's not clear from any of this.
I don't know this. There are plenty of legal contracts one might have to the mafia, and they are quite happy to prosecute inside the law as well as outside of it. Some of them have grown a lot from the street gangster days, some are even government officials. The question is when your moral obligations exceed your legal obligations, and it's really not clear in this case. Oaths as extreme as the poster implies are inherently flawed and no one at all should be expected to adhere, and anyone who says they will should never be trusted.
Although this information should be fed to the public, there are some questions I wonder if she considered. First, is the information accurate or deliberate misinformation designed to destabilize (particularly after a bizarre, unexpectedly close, surprise result with significant political fallout). Second, was the information obtained in such a way that it might harm or compromise an operative who is in a precarious situation should anyone find out he is leaking sensitive information. Finally, will releasing this information hinder efforts as part of a larger investigation that she may not be aware of.
She is too low level to have definitive answers to any of these questions, so the question is why did she not trust her chain of command to do the right thing? I think she might have done better work for America if she could demonstrate that her chain of command was compromised, or untrustworthy. If she doesn't actually think any of these things are true, she should actually go to prison, because what she did was in that case, unacceptable.
I am very certain that the USA does do this. So you have to decide who you want to spy on you, or roll your own (in which case, you will certainly add your own backdoors!).
I would rather be spied on by Europe/Australia than China, if anything Europe stays closer to their ideology and would make a good watchdog. China pretty much wants the same evil they do in their own country.
I think it's clear nobody wants to be spied on by Russia.
there is a specific way to do something rather then being able to creatively solve problem
Only if they went to a bad school, and/or are idiots. Their strengths are generally having a good working knowledge of how similar problems were solved in the past, and what was good/bad about them. If they get stuck on that, the problem is not education, it's IQ. The issue I have seen is being overly focused on finding the optimal algorithm, when simple or straight-forward will suffice, and being nerd baited into arguments over how to write good code, versus getting something done on a deadline.
I know I will take heat over that last statement, but let's face it, sometimes you have to do the nasty to pay the bills. Good coders will get rid of that abortion once the storm passes, bad ones just grouch about it until the end of time or carry it forward as a monument to the perceived stupidity of their bosses.
Netflix is increasingly facing an uphill battle against publishers and content owners for rights to stream. Those people are in the process of fragmenting the market into a million different subcription services with maybe one good thing to watch. For companies that broadcast however, you can just sit there with your digital antenna and get their one good show, skip the ads, and say "fuck you" for as long as it lasts.
My recommendation is a good digital antenna for your environment and tablo, if you don't want to DIY and want turnkey. I'm very happy with that solution. Of course if you want to DIY, there are a few options out there and you can save more bucks. I personally found the tablo to cost less than my time investment, and it should work with any other TV streaming device you use (i.e. roku, appletv, whatever).
This is why Dr. Pulaski lasted only one season, she was an inhuman monster.
I think you mean "not".
I think they meant "now". My father admired the company and believed it represented the future.
I think it's a form of inoperable ass cancer.
And the number of typing shall be 666.
Nah, right around the jugular vein or carotid artery will have the most fun returns on the law of unintended consequences.
Voluntary is a scary word.
Voluntary as in it's totally up to you to have this convenience, or else we give you a badge like everyone else, is fine.
Voluntary as in you can take this RFID or you can find another job is not. This is the one I see on the road ahead, and the laws need to get ahead of it. This is voluntary only for lunatics.
You think they would believe you?
They shouldn't, I saw him do it. Filthy AC's are ruining my city, taking our jobs, bringing in drugs, hang em all.
If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Competition is a powerful tool, but it requires a referee, and intelligent rules that ensures that competition continues, and that once you have a "winner", another contender can emerge and eat his lunch if he's sleeping. In many cases, we don't have that. Also, unlike sports, you have to consider the well being of the loser, which is where a government focused entirely on capitalism falls short. You want people to play the game, to play hard and ensure there's something to "win", but you don't want your losers to fall out and give up (or just plain die, when applied to real life). You need a safety net.
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism. It is not a perfect system, it has many faults, as does socialism, as does a command economy. The overreaction is in part due to the fact that the US has reached a plateau, that geopolitics is not favoring us significantly and there is a lot less to go around, but also in part to the hard right turn reflected in both parties. We are seeing some facets of socialism that we have had for a long time, that were working amazingly well, get defunded and brutalized for an agenda that doesn't really make any sense. We're also seeing the government move away from the safety net idea that was going to enable us to be competitive globally, shoring up the weaknesses of capitalism, in favor of some very naive and misguided libertarian principles, all while ignoring the very real reality of a global economy, that will succeed no matter what we do.
I don't know what economics courses you took, but when I read about the ISMs, I didn't hear "this is the best and clear winner". What I heard is here is what it does well, here is what it does poorly. Even command economies have strength: no other ism can move and adapt as quickly, no other ism CAN be as skillfully manipulated for a purpose. But of course, the weaknesses are tremendous. It's important to understand these shades, China manipulates all of the isms masterfully, at least in comparison to literally everyone else.
Yea Forcing Diversity in to things at the expense of people that could be more qualified has never been a bad idea.
Well, board members aren't notorious for their qualifications, it is crooked by definition. These are either genuine 1%ers who want to make the case that they actually work for a living, or their representatives. So putting a woman on the board just to have a woman on the board probably doesn't hurt anything that wasn't hurting already. The only real requirement is to be evil, and I believe woman can be just as evil as men.
The offensive part is the government mandate, and government interference in private enterprise when there's no harm to body or property on the line. Further, even if I thought affirmative action were worth government intervention, I would require african americans or hispanics first. Having a whole racial and ethnic demographic denied access to money is far more harmful than a gender, who usually have access, if not via the ideal means.
If you feel threatened by someone knocking on your door when staying in their home, and asking to enter, I do not think anyone is going to have your back when you go to court. There's no clear and present danger, there's no surprise, you're just trying to find an excuse to murder someone.
Don't stay in these hotels is the solution. Even if their cover story of safety is legit, they deserve to lose money to operate under the assumption that anyone at all might be the next mass murderer.