no he wasn't. In his future, the difference between the state and the corporation was zero. We're damned close to that now where one passes the puck to the other to get over some legal or functional limitation the other isn't limited by. When it's done, the puck gets passed back.
I have come to think that the unyielding rigidity of fundamentalism (be it Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pastafarian, what-have-you) indicates a form of mental illness. I speak not in hyperboles -- a flat-out refusal to accept empiric reality represents a turn straight into pathology. Entropius's description here of the irrational universe and inherent disorder cleaved to by young-Earth creationists depicts an alarming rejection of reality and embrace of capriciousness.
Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way.
False.
No one who understand what science is believes in evolution. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is a system of evidence based reasoning. It is not proper to say "I believe in evolution", but rather "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence"...
I understand your core point, that "science is not a system of beliefs". However, it also bears noting that ambiguous use of this term "believe" can lead to unproductive bouts of talking past one another.
To wit, one may believe in science in the same way that one believes in gravitation or in the blueness of the sky -- in this sense, "belief" is more of a statement of expectation or a statement of one's view of the universe based on learned experience. Meanwhile, one can believe in a supernatural entity who is both all-forgiving and vengeful at the same time, which in most cases is *not* based on learned experience. The two meanings of "belief" are broadly similar, but the distinction is an important one.
(I say "in most cases" as there do appear to be instances of people who have had experiences related to such a being; meanwhile, I have also had extensive conversations about the subjectivity of reality with a close friend of mine who suffered from a schizophrenic disorder. I accept that reality is subjective and an individual experience. I also hold to the view that any subjective experience of reality that is not broadly shared with others is of dubious value in formulating reliable judgments about the world around me.)
Looked at differently, "belief" could be interpreted as a statement of trust in received wisdom. How many of us actually have experience carrying out the vast array of experiments upon which modern science is based? No one can, as there's simply too much to fit into one lifetime. We must, to some extent, take scientific findings as a matter of faith. The big difference between faith or belief in science, and faith or belief in (a) deit(y/ies), is that science can be replicated and verified, while supernatural events cannot be. Faith or belief in the supernatural must ultimately depend upon the authority of the person from whom such information comes. This may help explain the correlation between the rise of fundamentalism and the rise of authoritarianism in the US.
With hindsight, perhaps, but Samsung's legal team had their chance to evict him from the jury back in July when the jury was selected, so either they missed the chance or decided that there was a greater risk of pro-Apple bias from another juror and evicted someone else instead. From what I recall of the process there were a lot of potential jurors with a potential bias towards Apple (knowing Apple employees, owning Apple hardware, etc.) and Samsung couldn't get rid of them all, just as Apple couldn't get rid of the jurors that has similar potential bias towards Android/Samsung. I think it more likely that Samsung's legal team thought that as an electrical engineer and patent holder he might have a better grasp of their case and gambled that he might tip the balance more in their favour than in Apples'. If so it was a bad call, that's all.
I wonder if instead it might have been a deliberate ploy by Samsung -- if they could get an obviously-screwy pro-Apple verdict at this stage, it would be easier to have that verdict thrown out and move one rung up the appeals process.
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it.... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred. Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Yeah. Ask anyone who's ever had to get a 'booster' shot (pretty much everyone, if they've gone to the doctor and been tested for it) how effective their first shot was. You know, the first shot that was supposed to give them life-long immunity.
Booster shots exist precisely because numerous types of vaccine are well-understood to *not* confer lifelong immunity. Tetanus immunizations, for instance, generally last for 10 years.
I'm not sure where you came under the impression that all vaccinations are "supposed to give [you] life-long immunity", but that's simply just not the case: you appear to be confused, or misinformed.
While those of good nature with light in their hearts
Find goodness in each of life various parts,
They see each blessing as a bountiful bowl;
A half glass of water they see as half full.
But I say these folks need a stick in the eye!
Beat them in the head till they break down and cry.
Tell me not to be cheery! To you I say this:
My life is a glass that is half full of piss.
(everybody now!)
Tallu tallary ta tippy tarye,
I shan't feel better till the barrel is dry.
So fill up me tankard with that good foamy bliss!
Me life is a glass that is half full of piss.
Thank you for the reasoned and explanatory reply. One minor suggestion for the future would be to preface your comments about HFT with a simple statement that you work in the field. That might be visible if someone were to dig through your posting history, but I sure didn't catch it in this particular subthread; starting with that would have put your comments in a different light as I read them.
Fact: the biggest crashes over the past couple of years have occurred when HFT pulled out due to bad information and impossible quotes.
Question: Where did those impossible quotes come from? Why were they impossible? What prompted such quotes? Were the algo quotes, or human quotes? Was HFT any significant factor in why such impossible quotes were made?
Fact: studies has concluded that HFT is overall good for the marketplace.
Question: Who commissioned such studies? Are there any other studies commissioned by other people/groups? Do all studies of HFT reach the same conclusion? Are all such studies commissioned by the same people?
Overarching question: What are your sources?
So far, all I have is your say-so. Admittedly, that's also most of all I have for SerpentMage (the GP), but he also provides what looks like a real name in his email, and a short bio. I don't even have that for you. In addition, and no offense meant, but a username such as "tolkienfan" does suggest someone with a bent towards fantasy, and when that's all I have to go by, as compared to SerpentMage's claim to be a quant algo writer, then SerpentMage's comments at least appear to be a bit more authoritative.
I seriously don't see the problem. We as a society have laws that people cannot kill for money.
We also have laws that people cannot solicit other people to kill for money. From the US Code, Title 18, Section 2:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
They only provided the means... unless by providing the opportunity you mean not arresting them at the first sign of trouble.
And providing motive ? How do you even do that ? They weren't exactly brainwashing these people.
From TFA, emphasis mine:
It took 11 months of meandering discussion and a promise of $250,000 to lead him, with three co-conspirators he recruited, to plant fake bombs at two Riverdale synagogues.
A quarter million dollars is quite a bit of motivation. The way it's described here, it sounds an awful lot like Mr. Cromitie wouldn't have attempted this without the promise of the $250K. I.e., the FBI provided the motive.
And eleven months of continuous pressuring starts to look a bit like brainwashing, frankly. This is not a picture of "somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town," which is what former federal prosecutor Raskin claims the FBI is looking for.
Indeed. We need a name for the situation in which a company does something beneficial not for any altruistic or ethical reasons, but simply because the most profitable path happens to be aligned with the interests of the users.
Once upon a time, that was called "doing business".
I agree with a good bit of what you say. But not really this part:
...teachers will be paid a decent middle class income. And no, they have no room to complain about it unless they want to change the collective mindset into an individual mindset.
My wife's a teacher. She's in private schools lately, so the issue with public school funding hasn't affected her directly for the past few years. But what I've heard from her and from her friends doesn't have to do with starting pay -- it has more to do with how policy changes over time. One friend of ours is in a district where all of the teachers are pink-slipped at the end of every year, and then they are "invited" to reapply for their jobs. Since they're "new" employees every year, there aren't the annual cost-of-living raises, meaning that teacher wages in that district have been stagnating for several years.
He loves his school, but hates the conditions under which he has to work. He doesn't fancy moving, so he's putting up with the district's shenanigans for the time being. But bad-faith jerking people around like this buys a lot of ill will. At least some of what you hear in the media about teachers striking and otherwise complaining is due not to any sort of wide-eyed naïveté going into the profession, and instead grows naturally out of bad experiences over the years.
I'd dare say that combine the quirks one must learn and the constant tossing of every feature in every single spot drowning you out, MS Office is the PHP of productivity software.
When I first read that, I really thought you'd written "MS Office is the PHB of productivity software."
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I would prefer to be driving the Fiat 500 in any case, but it really has nothing to do with potential accidents :D
Especially the Fiat 500 Abarth. :)
*I had a Toyota Corolla, a very small car then, now have a Prius. It consistenly gets 45 mpg or better and is a mid size car.
Coincidentally, is a mid size vagina as well.
As a (presumably) hetero male, isn't that exactly what you'd want to get inside of?
:-P
Episode #12:
Using Proper English
Everything you needed to know about the word, "Fuck".
Enjoy!
no he wasn't. In his future, the difference between the state and the corporation was zero. We're damned close to that now where one passes the puck to the other to get over some legal or functional limitation the other isn't limited by. When it's done, the puck gets passed back.
I dunno, but that sounds kinda Canadian, eh?
I have come to think that the unyielding rigidity of fundamentalism (be it Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pastafarian, what-have-you) indicates a form of mental illness. I speak not in hyperboles -- a flat-out refusal to accept empiric reality represents a turn straight into pathology. Entropius's description here of the irrational universe and inherent disorder cleaved to by young-Earth creationists depicts an alarming rejection of reality and embrace of capriciousness.
How very worrying.
Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way.
False.
No one who understand what science is believes in evolution. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is a system of evidence based reasoning. It is not proper to say "I believe in evolution", but rather "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence"...
I understand your core point, that "science is not a system of beliefs". However, it also bears noting that ambiguous use of this term "believe" can lead to unproductive bouts of talking past one another.
To wit, one may believe in science in the same way that one believes in gravitation or in the blueness of the sky -- in this sense, "belief" is more of a statement of expectation or a statement of one's view of the universe based on learned experience. Meanwhile, one can believe in a supernatural entity who is both all-forgiving and vengeful at the same time, which in most cases is *not* based on learned experience. The two meanings of "belief" are broadly similar, but the distinction is an important one.
(I say "in most cases" as there do appear to be instances of people who have had experiences related to such a being; meanwhile, I have also had extensive conversations about the subjectivity of reality with a close friend of mine who suffered from a schizophrenic disorder. I accept that reality is subjective and an individual experience. I also hold to the view that any subjective experience of reality that is not broadly shared with others is of dubious value in formulating reliable judgments about the world around me.)
Looked at differently, "belief" could be interpreted as a statement of trust in received wisdom. How many of us actually have experience carrying out the vast array of experiments upon which modern science is based? No one can, as there's simply too much to fit into one lifetime. We must, to some extent, take scientific findings as a matter of faith. The big difference between faith or belief in science, and faith or belief in (a) deit(y/ies), is that science can be replicated and verified, while supernatural events cannot be. Faith or belief in the supernatural must ultimately depend upon the authority of the person from whom such information comes. This may help explain the correlation between the rise of fundamentalism and the rise of authoritarianism in the US.
Cheers,
Sounds like an asshole to me.
Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.
So are we still talking about sodomy? I'm so confused...
:-P
With hindsight, perhaps, but Samsung's legal team had their chance to evict him from the jury back in July when the jury was selected, so either they missed the chance or decided that there was a greater risk of pro-Apple bias from another juror and evicted someone else instead. From what I recall of the process there were a lot of potential jurors with a potential bias towards Apple (knowing Apple employees, owning Apple hardware, etc.) and Samsung couldn't get rid of them all, just as Apple couldn't get rid of the jurors that has similar potential bias towards Android/Samsung. I think it more likely that Samsung's legal team thought that as an electrical engineer and patent holder he might have a better grasp of their case and gambled that he might tip the balance more in their favour than in Apples'. If so it was a bad call, that's all.
I wonder if instead it might have been a deliberate ploy by Samsung -- if they could get an obviously-screwy pro-Apple verdict at this stage, it would be easier to have that verdict thrown out and move one rung up the appeals process.
Cheers,
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it. ... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred. Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
Yeah. Ask anyone who's ever had to get a 'booster' shot (pretty much everyone, if they've gone to the doctor and been tested for it) how effective their first shot was. You know, the first shot that was supposed to give them life-long immunity.
Booster shots exist precisely because numerous types of vaccine are well-understood to *not* confer lifelong immunity. Tetanus immunizations, for instance, generally last for 10 years.
I'm not sure where you came under the impression that all vaccinations are "supposed to give [you] life-long immunity", but that's simply just not the case: you appear to be confused, or misinformed.
Cheers,
Same reason they call porn actors/actresses "talent"
I'm pretty sure I don't want to see any FB execs naked, though.
I think I went to New Zealand once, it's right beside Florida at the edge of the World..... right?
New Zealand is like Australia's Canada.
Oh, so Australia has 51 states too? Cool.
The glass is always full...
While those of good nature with light in their hearts
Find goodness in each of life various parts,
They see each blessing as a bountiful bowl;
A half glass of water they see as half full.
But I say these folks need a stick in the eye!
Beat them in the head till they break down and cry.
Tell me not to be cheery! To you I say this:
My life is a glass that is half full of piss.
(everybody now!)
Tallu tallary ta tippy tarye,
I shan't feel better till the barrel is dry.
So fill up me tankard with that good foamy bliss!
Me life is a glass that is half full of piss.
(With apologies / thanks to The Poxy Boggards.)
Thank you for the reasoned and explanatory reply. One minor suggestion for the future would be to preface your comments about HFT with a simple statement that you work in the field. That might be visible if someone were to dig through your posting history, but I sure didn't catch it in this particular subthread; starting with that would have put your comments in a different light as I read them.
Cheers,
Fact: the biggest crashes over the past couple of years have occurred when HFT pulled out due to bad information and impossible quotes.
Question: Where did those impossible quotes come from? Why were they impossible? What prompted such quotes? Were the algo quotes, or human quotes? Was HFT any significant factor in why such impossible quotes were made?
Fact: studies has concluded that HFT is overall good for the marketplace.
Question: Who commissioned such studies? Are there any other studies commissioned by other people/groups? Do all studies of HFT reach the same conclusion? Are all such studies commissioned by the same people?
Overarching question: What are your sources?
So far, all I have is your say-so. Admittedly, that's also most of all I have for SerpentMage (the GP), but he also provides what looks like a real name in his email, and a short bio. I don't even have that for you. In addition, and no offense meant, but a username such as "tolkienfan" does suggest someone with a bent towards fantasy, and when that's all I have to go by, as compared to SerpentMage's claim to be a quant algo writer, then SerpentMage's comments at least appear to be a bit more authoritative.
Cheers,
See http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921 for the Curiosity landing video.
Cheers,
Windows 8 has gotten more idiot proof than usual, and that's what draws in people that don't already somehow have a PC.
Thing is, make something idiot proof, the universe evolves a better class of idiots.
Idiots are so ingenious that they've written themselves an OS.
...codenamed IdiOS.
Baryonic matter ("normal" matter from our perspective) is the minority.
WE are the Goatse Universe.
NOOOOOOOoooo ... oh, wait, that's not what you said. Phew.
FB knows your stated desires. GOOG knows you're hidden desires.
Between the two of them, they could create one heck of a phone sex operation.
Yeah, but "FaceGOOG"? I wouldn't go for it. :-P
I seriously don't see the problem. We as a society have laws that people cannot kill for money.
We also have laws that people cannot solicit other people to kill for money. From the US Code, Title 18, Section 2:
Additional resources: Wikipedia on "solicitation" in criminal law, Wikipedia on "aiding and abetting" in criminal law.
They only provided the means ... unless by providing the opportunity you mean not arresting them at the first sign of trouble.
And providing motive ? How do you even do that ? They weren't exactly brainwashing these people.
From TFA, emphasis mine:
A quarter million dollars is quite a bit of motivation. The way it's described here, it sounds an awful lot like Mr. Cromitie wouldn't have attempted this without the promise of the $250K. I.e., the FBI provided the motive.
And eleven months of continuous pressuring starts to look a bit like brainwashing, frankly. This is not a picture of "somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town," which is what former federal prosecutor Raskin claims the FBI is looking for.
Indeed. We need a name for the situation in which a company does something beneficial not for any altruistic or ethical reasons, but simply because the most profitable path happens to be aligned with the interests of the users.
Once upon a time, that was called "doing business".
I agree with a good bit of what you say. But not really this part:
...teachers will be paid a decent middle class income. And no, they have no room to complain about it unless they want to change the collective mindset into an individual mindset.
My wife's a teacher. She's in private schools lately, so the issue with public school funding hasn't affected her directly for the past few years. But what I've heard from her and from her friends doesn't have to do with starting pay -- it has more to do with how policy changes over time. One friend of ours is in a district where all of the teachers are pink-slipped at the end of every year, and then they are "invited" to reapply for their jobs. Since they're "new" employees every year, there aren't the annual cost-of-living raises, meaning that teacher wages in that district have been stagnating for several years.
He loves his school, but hates the conditions under which he has to work. He doesn't fancy moving, so he's putting up with the district's shenanigans for the time being. But bad-faith jerking people around like this buys a lot of ill will. At least some of what you hear in the media about teachers striking and otherwise complaining is due not to any sort of wide-eyed naïveté going into the profession, and instead grows naturally out of bad experiences over the years.
Cheers,
I'd dare say that combine the quirks one must learn and the constant tossing of every feature in every single spot drowning you out, MS Office is the PHP of productivity software.
When I first read that, I really thought you'd written "MS Office is the PHB of productivity software."
I guess that still kinda works.
Kinda like MS Office.
Congratulations on discovering that not everyone works the same way. Why was this voted up?
Maybe because Windows' and Gnome 3's insistence on "one window to rule them all" shows that they haven't made this same discovery?
Cheers,