Your post is an example of the same SJW lynch mob nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take. It reduces accidents and lowers the need for prosecution in the first place. The surroundings of a street have more impact on driving behaviour and outcomes than any presence of police patrols, speed cameras or signage.
Then, using your logic, we should remove paving of roads. That would definitely cause people to slow down! Societies have rules, plain and simple. If a society agrees that people shouldn't steal then they pass laws and enforce those laws to discourage the behavior. If a society says that you shouldn't drive faster than x on a given stretch of road, then why would it not enforce those laws to discourage the behavior?
Let's not forget that there was also the option of running high speed internet over the power lines. It does mess with Ham operators signals, though, so is not widely adopted. But in areas where it is adopted, people seem pretty satisfied.
Actually it won't. Not unless your grandmas phone was touch tone and 80 years ago it certainly wasn't.
You may not be able to place calls with a rotary phone any more, but you certainly can receive them. The system still works, its just the dialing methods have changed.
Why is it controversial, exactly? Are critics worried about the X-Men? Or are they mad because of religious rigmarole?
Because they are creating genetically modified human beings. Currently, the technique is being looked at for certain negative conditions, but it has the potential to be used for other purposes, too. The issue of designer babies is a moral question, not a scientific one. And, moral questions are often controversial.
spherical (sfîr-kl, sfr-) also spheric (-k) adj. 1. a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular. b. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere. 2. Of or relating to a sphere. 3. Of or relating to celestial bodies.
I can only assume one of three things are true: 1) You saying that the earth does not have a shape approximating that of a sphere? 2) You are saying that the earth is a two dimensional ellipse that when spun around one of its axis forms a spheroid. (of course that would make the earth flat, being only two dimensions). 3) You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
In case the reason is 3, then is the earth spheroidal in shape by nature or is it spherical and only deformed into such shape from the forces exerted by its revolution? Furthermore, isn't spherical just a subset of spheroidal? If so, in the case of planetary bodies in this solar system, is not the term synonymous?
Spherical is an adjective that describes the shape. A spheroid is the the noun. So, if asked what shape describes the earth, the answer is spherical. If asked what type of shape is the earth, it would be a spheroid.
Fuck Java. I hated it was a requirement for my networking classes and I hate what it has done to the industry in terms of advertising/abuse.
Java didn't do any of that. People did. And if it wasn't Java, they would have used something else. Java, is just a tool that people use to accomplish a goal.
One possibility for the future is mapping your internal chemistry and having it analyzed with a massive database to see what foods work best for you. Another may involve tweaking your gut microbiome to change how you extract energy from certain foods.
1) Eat food - food does not list ingredients, but often is listed as an ingredient. A potato is food, A box of scallop potatoes is not. If what you are eating is required to have labels to inform you of what is really in it, then it isn't food. (Note: this applies mainly to packaged food products. Obviously, there are foods that have labels, because they may be packed in water, etc.)
2) Don't change calories - Calories simply measure the maximum amount of energy that may be utilized. People have different metabolisms so that one person may be more efficient at utilizing those calories than somebody else, but that doesn't mean we should change the measure. Different automobiles are more or less efficient at utilizing gasoline, but that doesn't mean we should change how gasoline is labeled.
3) Calories aren't nutrition - Calories are about energy, not nutrition. 100 calorie apple and a 100 calories of sugar both provide the same amount of available energy, but the sugar has zero nutritional value. However, since calories do impact weight as in calories consumed less calories burned will either add to or subtract from one's weight, they can't be ignored. On the otherhand, they shouldn't be obsessed over, particularly since metabolism has a major impact on weight.
4) CICO - Calories In, Calories Out - assuming one is getting adequate nutrition, if the concern is weight, then regardless of ones metabolism, if you are gaining weight more weight than you want, you either a) need to reduce calories or b) burn more calories. Likewise, if you are losing more weight than desired, you need to a) increase calories or b) burn less of them. It doesn't take some database tailored to your specific body or specific flora in your gut. Those may explain why one person loses or gains more than another, but it doesn't alter CICO.
TL;DR - We don't need a national database of each person's metabolic profile or gut flora. We simply need to eat nutritious food and have more active lifestyles.
What is the point of paying a premium for a self driving car if there is still a possibility of it getting in an accident? Isn't that kind of the whole point of self driving cars?
No. The point of self driving cars is to be safer than driving is today. They don't promise accident free.
If I have a self driving car that can't get in an accident, why do I need insurance? If it gets in an accident it isn't my fault.
Because unless you simply store it in your garage, it is impossible to have a self driving car that can't get into an accident. The likelihood of an accident is greatly reduced, but it isn't eliminated.
Why would insurance companies need to be figuring out how to survive? True, there may be less vehicles in the future, but they will still be insured. Yes, the vehicles may be safer and have fewer accidents, but they will still be insured. Insurance companies profit from managing the risk. Yes, they will have lower gross revenue, but they will also have lower expenses. The net effect should be unchanged.
That is, of course, assuming that insurance companies aren't charging inflated rates in the current climate.
Bigotry refers to rejecting someone else's opinions without considering them because they are not your own. It has nothing to do with being mean or hateful. It originated with religion. A bigot is basically someone who says "I'm right, you're wrong, BECAUSE!". However, the media and SJW crowd have turned the word bigot into a weapon and misused it terribly.
I relied on Mirriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot ). Maybe in the past it meant what you say, but the way it is used today does not reflect what you say. Bigotry, today, is about prejudice and intolerance. For instance, all racists are bigots, but all bigots are not racists.
The original post about little people, was bigotry because it used a derogatory label -- dwarfs. Just like, referring to somebody who is mentally challenged as retarded is, too. Since we can choose the word we use to describe others, the actual choice of words we use reveals our own prejudices.
>> Dwarf planets are not planets any more than dwarf people are people.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than daddy long-legs spiders are not spiders. Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Komodo dragons are not dragons. Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Fool's Gold is not gold.
I think we can agree that English isn't the best language for science. Where are we going with this?
Two and three are correct, but there definitely is a real daddy long-legs spider. It's just that most people misidentify an creature known as a harvestmen as a daddy long-legs spider, which obviously, it is not.
He didn't say we were doomed because of technology. He said that advances in technology can be abused and that abuse is the causation of the doom. There is a difference. Take splitting the atom. You can produce relatively cheap energy with it or you can use it to destroy entire cities. The technology itself is neutral. It is how humanity chooses to use the technology that determines if there is destruction or not.
Hawking is waving a sign saying the end is near. He is pointing out, however, that we have the power to do a lot of damage if we are not careful.
Please site where Republicans are more interested in collecting information and preventing dissenters than Democrats.
I guess you haven't heard of the Supreme Court case being discussed right now in which the unions (they're Democrats from what I've been told) have been oppressing their members and making arguments that suppression of dissent gives them the ability to do more "good". Sweet.
Again, please give sources.
I don't know about the republicans or the democrats, but I am pretty sure that whatever unions do, they aren't the government.
If they altered data in an intentionally misleading way, they're fraudsters regardless of why they did it. As for personal gain, having a political agenda may not qualify as personal gain, but it's still a reason to commit fraud. Absent that, being able to publish something that gets a lot of attention may be enough. Publishing widely cited articles is a big deal in the research biz.
I agree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that the researchers in question committed the crime of fraud. If they fabricated data, that is definitely wrong, but not necessarily fraudulent. Regardless, fraud would need to be proven in a court and not on slashdot.
According to wikipedia: fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain
In the article, it says " under scrutiny for alleged data manipulation". In addition, since the article states that "these papers have been used politically" (the potential gain), it sounds like they they are investigating potential fraud to me.
Even if they did alter data, how did they, the researchers personally secure unfair or unlawful gain from it? Just because somebody else used their research doesn't mean they are fraudsters.
In a modern factory, which is highly automated, it is hard to understand why it should cost more to manufacture in the US than in China. Many modern factories have a handful of staff. Yes, there is shipping and receiving costs, but then you have to figure in the costs of unloading a container ship, too.
As for Toyota and Honda, they both have manufacturing plants in the US. On the West Coast, many vehicles arrive via ship, but for most of the country, they get them made here. Either way, foreign or domestic, they are the same price.
Many businesses have found out that once you move manufacturing to China, if you want to move elsewhere, you are free to do so, you just can't get your molds, inventory and other business assets back very easily.
That might be true if these were surveillance tapes, but they weren't. They were body cams. There shouldn't be anything to redact as they are recorded in the public. While I agree 190 hours seems like a fishing expedition, charging $168/hour seems a bit excessive, too.
The funny part is, he was begging the question, but you used it wrong irregardless.
He wasn't begging the question. That would mean he was presenting the conclusion of the argument as the premise. That didn't occur. However, I'm pretty sure your post was meant as an ad hominem attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is an example of the same SJW lynch mob nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take. It reduces accidents and lowers the need for prosecution in the first place. The surroundings of a street have more impact on driving behaviour and outcomes than any presence of police patrols, speed cameras or signage.
Then, using your logic, we should remove paving of roads. That would definitely cause people to slow down! Societies have rules, plain and simple. If a society agrees that people shouldn't steal then they pass laws and enforce those laws to discourage the behavior. If a society says that you shouldn't drive faster than x on a given stretch of road, then why would it not enforce those laws to discourage the behavior?
Let's not forget that there was also the option of running high speed internet over the power lines. It does mess with Ham operators signals, though, so is not widely adopted. But in areas where it is adopted, people seem pretty satisfied.
Actually it won't. Not unless your grandmas phone was touch tone and 80 years ago it certainly wasn't.
You may not be able to place calls with a rotary phone any more, but you certainly can receive them. The system still works, its just the dialing methods have changed.
You seem to think I am opposed to this. I did not take a stand one way or the other. I just answered the OP's rhetorical question.
Why is it controversial, exactly?
Are critics worried about the X-Men? Or are they mad because of religious rigmarole?
Because they are creating genetically modified human beings. Currently, the technique is being looked at for certain negative conditions, but it has the potential to be used for other purposes, too. The issue of designer babies is a moral question, not a scientific one. And, moral questions are often controversial.
That would be great, if spheroidal wasn't a word, and sphere and spheroid didn't mean two different things.
Sam
From http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
spherical (sfîr-kl, sfr-) also spheric (-k)
adj.
1.
a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.
b. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.
2. Of or relating to a sphere.
3. Of or relating to celestial bodies.
I can only assume one of three things are true:
1) You saying that the earth does not have a shape approximating that of a sphere?
2) You are saying that the earth is a two dimensional ellipse that when spun around one of its axis forms a spheroid. (of course that would make the earth flat, being only two dimensions).
3) You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
In case the reason is 3, then is the earth spheroidal in shape by nature or is it spherical and only deformed into such shape from the forces exerted by its revolution? Furthermore, isn't spherical just a subset of spheroidal? If so, in the case of planetary bodies in this solar system, is not the term synonymous?
The earth isn't spherical, it's a spheroid.
Spherical is an adjective that describes the shape. A spheroid is the the noun. So, if asked what shape describes the earth, the answer is spherical. If asked what type of shape is the earth, it would be a spheroid.
Fuck Java. I hated it was a requirement for my networking classes and I hate what it has done to the industry in terms of advertising/abuse.
Java didn't do any of that. People did. And if it wasn't Java, they would have used something else. Java, is just a tool that people use to accomplish a goal.
The earth is neither flat nor round. It is spherical, however.
Instead of
One possibility for the future is mapping your internal chemistry and having it analyzed with a massive database to see what foods work best for you. Another may involve tweaking your gut microbiome to change how you extract energy from certain foods.
1) Eat food - food does not list ingredients, but often is listed as an ingredient. A potato is food, A box of scallop potatoes is not. If what you are eating is required to have labels to inform you of what is really in it, then it isn't food. (Note: this applies mainly to packaged food products. Obviously, there are foods that have labels, because they may be packed in water, etc.)
2) Don't change calories - Calories simply measure the maximum amount of energy that may be utilized. People have different metabolisms so that one person may be more efficient at utilizing those calories than somebody else, but that doesn't mean we should change the measure. Different automobiles are more or less efficient at utilizing gasoline, but that doesn't mean we should change how gasoline is labeled.
3) Calories aren't nutrition - Calories are about energy, not nutrition. 100 calorie apple and a 100 calories of sugar both provide the same amount of available energy, but the sugar has zero nutritional value. However, since calories do impact weight as in calories consumed less calories burned will either add to or subtract from one's weight, they can't be ignored. On the otherhand, they shouldn't be obsessed over, particularly since metabolism has a major impact on weight.
4) CICO - Calories In, Calories Out - assuming one is getting adequate nutrition, if the concern is weight, then regardless of ones metabolism, if you are gaining weight more weight than you want, you either a) need to reduce calories or b) burn more calories. Likewise, if you are losing more weight than desired, you need to a) increase calories or b) burn less of them. It doesn't take some database tailored to your specific body or specific flora in your gut. Those may explain why one person loses or gains more than another, but it doesn't alter CICO.
TL;DR - We don't need a national database of each person's metabolic profile or gut flora. We simply need to eat nutritious food and have more active lifestyles.
What is the point of paying a premium for a self driving car if there is still a possibility of it getting in an accident? Isn't that kind of the whole point of self driving cars?
No. The point of self driving cars is to be safer than driving is today. They don't promise accident free.
If I have a self driving car that can't get in an accident, why do I need insurance? If it gets in an accident it isn't my fault.
Because unless you simply store it in your garage, it is impossible to have a self driving car that can't get into an accident. The likelihood of an accident is greatly reduced, but it isn't eliminated.
Why would insurance companies need to be figuring out how to survive? True, there may be less vehicles in the future, but they will still be insured. Yes, the vehicles may be safer and have fewer accidents, but they will still be insured. Insurance companies profit from managing the risk. Yes, they will have lower gross revenue, but they will also have lower expenses. The net effect should be unchanged.
That is, of course, assuming that insurance companies aren't charging inflated rates in the current climate.
Bigotry refers to rejecting someone else's opinions without considering them because they are not your own.
It has nothing to do with being mean or hateful. It originated with religion. A bigot is basically someone who says "I'm right, you're wrong, BECAUSE!".
However, the media and SJW crowd have turned the word bigot into a weapon and misused it terribly.
I relied on Mirriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot ). Maybe in the past it meant what you say, but the way it is used today does not reflect what you say. Bigotry, today, is about prejudice and intolerance. For instance, all racists are bigots, but all bigots are not racists.
The original post about little people, was bigotry because it used a derogatory label -- dwarfs. Just like, referring to somebody who is mentally challenged as retarded is, too. Since we can choose the word we use to describe others, the actual choice of words we use reveals our own prejudices.
>> Dwarf planets are not planets any more than dwarf people are people.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than daddy long-legs spiders are not spiders.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Komodo dragons are not dragons.
Dwarf planets are not planets any more than Fool's Gold is not gold.
I think we can agree that English isn't the best language for science. Where are we going with this?
Two and three are correct, but there definitely is a real daddy long-legs spider. It's just that most people misidentify an creature known as a harvestmen as a daddy long-legs spider, which obviously, it is not.
you racist
Actually, little people aren't a separate ethnicity. So racist is the wrong term to use. Bigot would work, however.
He didn't say we were doomed because of technology. He said that advances in technology can be abused and that abuse is the causation of the doom. There is a difference. Take splitting the atom. You can produce relatively cheap energy with it or you can use it to destroy entire cities. The technology itself is neutral. It is how humanity chooses to use the technology that determines if there is destruction or not.
Hawking is waving a sign saying the end is near. He is pointing out, however, that we have the power to do a lot of damage if we are not careful.
Really? And the Dems are not?
Please site where Republicans are more interested in collecting information and preventing dissenters than Democrats.
I guess you haven't heard of the Supreme Court case being discussed right now in which the unions (they're Democrats from what I've been told) have been oppressing their members and making arguments that suppression of dissent gives them the ability to do more "good". Sweet.
Again, please give sources.
I don't know about the republicans or the democrats, but I am pretty sure that whatever unions do, they aren't the government.
If they altered data in an intentionally misleading way, they're fraudsters regardless of why they did it. As for personal gain, having a political agenda may not qualify as personal gain, but it's still a reason to commit fraud. Absent that, being able to publish something that gets a lot of attention may be enough. Publishing widely cited articles is a big deal in the research biz.
I agree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that the researchers in question committed the crime of fraud. If they fabricated data, that is definitely wrong, but not necessarily fraudulent. Regardless, fraud would need to be proven in a court and not on slashdot.
According to wikipedia: fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain
In the article, it says " under scrutiny for alleged data manipulation". In addition, since the article states that "these papers have been used politically" (the potential gain), it sounds like they they are investigating potential fraud to me.
Even if they did alter data, how did they, the researchers personally secure unfair or unlawful gain from it? Just because somebody else used their research doesn't mean they are fraudsters.
In a modern factory, which is highly automated, it is hard to understand why it should cost more to manufacture in the US than in China. Many modern factories have a handful of staff. Yes, there is shipping and receiving costs, but then you have to figure in the costs of unloading a container ship, too.
As for Toyota and Honda, they both have manufacturing plants in the US. On the West Coast, many vehicles arrive via ship, but for most of the country, they get them made here. Either way, foreign or domestic, they are the same price.
Many businesses have found out that once you move manufacturing to China, if you want to move elsewhere, you are free to do so, you just can't get your molds, inventory and other business assets back very easily.
I believe if we were to make one in the USA at this point in time it would be about $2,000 instead of $700.
Toyota and Honda don't charge a price differential for cars made in the US versus those made in Japan. Why would Samsung?
That might be true if these were surveillance tapes, but they weren't. They were body cams. There shouldn't be anything to redact as they are recorded in the public. While I agree 190 hours seems like a fishing expedition, charging $168/hour seems a bit excessive, too.
It all started with Noah Webster in the 1830's
But it was the Disney decision that extended it the time period because they were about to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse.
The funny part is, he was begging the question, but you used it wrong irregardless.
He wasn't begging the question. That would mean he was presenting the conclusion of the argument as the premise. That didn't occur. However, I'm pretty sure your post was meant as an ad hominem attack.