And an idiot is technically someone who doesn't get the point when it's handed to him on a silver platter. This particular joke just makes me sad for the human race, that in all this time since the sixties there are still kids who think that all doctors are male, and that the female equivalent of a doctor is a nurse. I do remember that from my kindergarten reading book back in 1969, but I thought we'd mostly purged it from the literature by now.
Apparently you wouldn't watch it, but I sure would. It would make me more likely to watch it. Half the human race is female, and I know lots more female Doctor Who fans than male. So what on earth makes you think that a female Doctor wouldn't get watched? I bet even you would watch it, protesting the whole time. And if you wouldn't, is that an aspect of your character you should be bragging about? What difference does it make? It's a bloody TV show! You make decisions about what to put in a TV show because they're entertaining, and there is no way that a female Doctor wouldn't be entertaining!
Dr. Who coming back as a male twelve bloody times when he has no control over his new form is just loaded dice. Can you explain to me why Dr. Who as a female doesn't make sense? I'm sorry, but I really don't get the resistance to this idea. It would be comic gold, for starters, at least in the first episode. It's very clearly possible in the canon. There are lots of female actors who would be fantastic as the Doctor. So where exactly is the problem that makes you call this "screw[ing] around with a series with a male lead character?"
You don't think Dr. Who as a female would make for some interesting stories? Are you dead inside? Political correctness is the last reason in the world why we'd want a female Doctor. We'd want a female Doctor because it would be interesting. Honestly, male Dr. Who has been done to death!
You don't think Dr. Who as a female would make for some interesting stories? Are you dead inside? Political correctness is the last reason in the world why we'd want a female Doctor. We'd want a female Doctor because it would be interesting. Honestly, male Dr. Who has been done to death!
The irony here is that corporations have in fact acquired police powers in some cases, and used them against individuals. So in that sense you could say that this guy is not wrong, but he's not wrong for the wrong reason. We do not want people with police powers to have a panopticon. The government has police powers; hence, we do not want them to have a panopticon. We also don't want the RIAA to have a panopticon, because they have managed to acquire police powers in some jurisdictions.
I think you two mean different things when you say "legitimate." Legitimate in the sense of sanctioned, versus legitimate in the sense of ethical. It is sanctioned for the government to kick down your door to find drugs. It is not ethical. No amount of sanctioning can make it ethical.
This is probably not the dynamic that's happening. What's happening is that most people feel powerless to do anything to change the situation, and justifiably so. When we conserve, fuel prices drop and demand rises; all our effort winds up in the pockets of wealthy people as profit, and net carbon use stays the same. Gas subsidies continue, despite the fact that most people oppose them, because politicians don't serve us: they serve their wealthy corporate donors. We were seeing a drop in solar prices toward parity with gas, and then protectionism reared its ugly head.
So people know for a fact that they can't do anything. And so there's no point in doing anything. But they know that they are part of the problem, even though they don't have the power to stop being part of the problem. So they feel guilty about it. And _that_ is how you get to this stupid situation that we are in. It's not that they want things to continue as they are: it's that they know for a fact that it's not their problem.
Dude, did you totally flunk math and biology in school? Crops can't grow exponentially, because they depend on inputs that aren't growing exponentially. Populations do grow exponentially, until they hit the resource limit, at which point they crash. This happens all the time in nature. It's not something that we would enjoy if it happened to us.
The advocates of this study want you to think that hydrofracking doesn't affect groundwater, and that the study says that, but of course it doesn't say that, and the link I gave you shows evidence to the contrary. Having said that, since you ask, here's an EPA study from Wyoming that shows contamination from fracking fluids: ReportOnPavilion.pdf
We stopped talking about it in the present tense when the global mutually assured destruction regime faded in prominence as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowadays our big existential threat is terrorism, and in that context the kind of humanity-killing nuclear catastrophe we used to talk about isn't so likely. Of course, we could still have a stupid accidental nuclear catastrophe, or a Indo-pakistan nuclear catastrophe, and we shouldn't imagine that there is no longer any existential threat from nuclear weapons.
The difference is that the existential threat from global warming is not only real, it is unaddressed. So the likelihood of human extinction due to positive feedback loops destroying the current climatic equilibrium is something that people who follow the science are more concerned about than human extinction due to nuclear war, even though that's still a possibility. To put it in perspective, such events have actually occurred in the history of the earth's biosphere, whereas nuclear war, as far as we know, has not.
Read "The Green Plague" by Larry Niven for an illustration...:)
I'm not entirely comfortable with Linus' response, but you have in fact misrepresented what he said. He did not say "you suck and you can't be redeemed." He said "you suck, and you should know better, and I want you to do better in the future or I will start taking you less seriously." He said it with a lot of invective, and it wasn't nice or polite. I'm not sure it's okay for him to behave this way. But he didn't just say "fuck off and die." Much as you may not like the _way_ he said it, what he said was constructive in the sense that he criticized a specific mistake and asked for a specific change in habitual behavior.
So despite not being entirely comfortable with his behavior, I don't think you've made your case.
Did I propose throwing money at the government as a solution? No. I am aware of the problems with government institutions. I'm also aware of their successes. Yes, problems of the sort you describe exist, but historically government facilities can and have done the same work now being done by contractors for a lot less money.
It's worth noting that the problems you describe are at least in part also the result of stupid top-down cost control measures. E.g., if it's time to replace the tires, why _doesn't_ the government employee have permission to spend the money?
Of course, your example is also nonsense—tires cost a fixed amount; there is no reason why it would be the case that buying one tire now and three later would be significantly costlier than buying four now. Labor per tire is the same in each case, except for the time spent getting the car on the lift. But I'm sure there are real examples like this, and for such examples that are common, it would certainly be worth doing something to address the problem. If it happens once every hundred events, it's probably not worth putting any effort into.
Yup. Likely what happened here is that the million-dollar security contractors gave the advice to do this bug hunt in the first place, and then provided the temporary replacement infrastructure, and walked away from the whole fiasco with a tidy profit. The reason this happens is because the government isn't generally allowed to hire people to do work like this, because "private industry is better." Of course, this sort of private industry is just a mechanism for siphoning off tax dollars, and the people who believe that hiring government employees to do government work is wasteful are actually responsible for fiascos like this, which are depressingly common.
Even when the contractors aren't crooked, the cost of employing them instead of federal employees is typically several times higher. But "corporations good, government wasteful." If we keep repeating that long enough maybe it will come true.
Slashdot Mirror
And an idiot is technically someone who doesn't get the point when it's handed to him on a silver platter. This particular joke just makes me sad for the human race, that in all this time since the sixties there are still kids who think that all doctors are male, and that the female equivalent of a doctor is a nurse. I do remember that from my kindergarten reading book back in 1969, but I thought we'd mostly purged it from the literature by now.
Apparently you wouldn't watch it, but I sure would. It would make me more likely to watch it. Half the human race is female, and I know lots more female Doctor Who fans than male. So what on earth makes you think that a female Doctor wouldn't get watched? I bet even you would watch it, protesting the whole time. And if you wouldn't, is that an aspect of your character you should be bragging about? What difference does it make? It's a bloody TV show! You make decisions about what to put in a TV show because they're entertaining, and there is no way that a female Doctor wouldn't be entertaining!
Dr. Who coming back as a male twelve bloody times when he has no control over his new form is just loaded dice. Can you explain to me why Dr. Who as a female doesn't make sense? I'm sorry, but I really don't get the resistance to this idea. It would be comic gold, for starters, at least in the first episode. It's very clearly possible in the canon. There are lots of female actors who would be fantastic as the Doctor. So where exactly is the problem that makes you call this "screw[ing] around with a series with a male lead character?"
You don't think Dr. Who as a female would make for some interesting stories? Are you dead inside? Political correctness is the last reason in the world why we'd want a female Doctor. We'd want a female Doctor because it would be interesting. Honestly, male Dr. Who has been done to death!
Ack, sorry, replied to the wrong post. Criticism not intentionally aimed at impy. So sorry.
You don't think Dr. Who as a female would make for some interesting stories? Are you dead inside? Political correctness is the last reason in the world why we'd want a female Doctor. We'd want a female Doctor because it would be interesting. Honestly, male Dr. Who has been done to death!
The irony here is that corporations have in fact acquired police powers in some cases, and used them against individuals. So in that sense you could say that this guy is not wrong, but he's not wrong for the wrong reason. We do not want people with police powers to have a panopticon. The government has police powers; hence, we do not want them to have a panopticon. We also don't want the RIAA to have a panopticon, because they have managed to acquire police powers in some jurisdictions.
I think you two mean different things when you say "legitimate." Legitimate in the sense of sanctioned, versus legitimate in the sense of ethical. It is sanctioned for the government to kick down your door to find drugs. It is not ethical. No amount of sanctioning can make it ethical.
This is probably not the dynamic that's happening. What's happening is that most people feel powerless to do anything to change the situation, and justifiably so. When we conserve, fuel prices drop and demand rises; all our effort winds up in the pockets of wealthy people as profit, and net carbon use stays the same. Gas subsidies continue, despite the fact that most people oppose them, because politicians don't serve us: they serve their wealthy corporate donors. We were seeing a drop in solar prices toward parity with gas, and then protectionism reared its ugly head.
So people know for a fact that they can't do anything. And so there's no point in doing anything. But they know that they are part of the problem, even though they don't have the power to stop being part of the problem. So they feel guilty about it. And _that_ is how you get to this stupid situation that we are in. It's not that they want things to continue as they are: it's that they know for a fact that it's not their problem.
Dude, did you totally flunk math and biology in school? Crops can't grow exponentially, because they depend on inputs that aren't growing exponentially. Populations do grow exponentially, until they hit the resource limit, at which point they crash. This happens all the time in nature. It's not something that we would enjoy if it happened to us.
Exactly.
You can call any data made up data, but I'd like you to read over the extremely detailed study they did in Pavillion, Wyoming, and in particular the conclusions from the report they did on this study in 2011, and tell me again all about how you've concluded that the data is made up.
The advocates of this study want you to think that hydrofracking doesn't affect groundwater, and that the study says that, but of course it doesn't say that, and the link I gave you shows evidence to the contrary. Having said that, since you ask, here's an EPA study from Wyoming that shows contamination from fracking fluids: ReportOnPavilion.pdf
Sure, no problem. Just because someone says something that doesn't agree with your opinion does not mean that they are wrong.
Global climate change hypothesis. Sigh. Maybe someday Slashdot will add the ability to edit our posts...
Fortunately, the global climate change is falsifiable, and we are in the process of demonstrating that it is correct. Yay science. :]
We stopped talking about it in the present tense when the global mutually assured destruction regime faded in prominence as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowadays our big existential threat is terrorism, and in that context the kind of humanity-killing nuclear catastrophe we used to talk about isn't so likely. Of course, we could still have a stupid accidental nuclear catastrophe, or a Indo-pakistan nuclear catastrophe, and we shouldn't imagine that there is no longer any existential threat from nuclear weapons.
The difference is that the existential threat from global warming is not only real, it is unaddressed. So the likelihood of human extinction due to positive feedback loops destroying the current climatic equilibrium is something that people who follow the science are more concerned about than human extinction due to nuclear war, even though that's still a possibility. To put it in perspective, such events have actually occurred in the history of the earth's biosphere, whereas nuclear war, as far as we know, has not.
Read "The Green Plague" by Larry Niven for an illustration... :)
Gah. Sorry. fq_codel is getting a 50x improvement on congested networks. Forgot my end tag. :(
No, if you watch the movie, self-directed autonomous drones, plus a computer virus, are how SkyNet gets started, at least in one world line.
However, my question about this article is that they are getting a 70% improvement over New Reno, which is a pretty old algorithm. is getting a 50x improvement on congested networks. So it's hard to see the win here—this algorithm sounds like it's actually quite a bit worse than one designed by human intelligence.
Translation: the study is contradicted by known data, so it would be interesting to understand why.
FTFY.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Linus' response, but you have in fact misrepresented what he said. He did not say "you suck and you can't be redeemed." He said "you suck, and you should know better, and I want you to do better in the future or I will start taking you less seriously." He said it with a lot of invective, and it wasn't nice or polite. I'm not sure it's okay for him to behave this way. But he didn't just say "fuck off and die." Much as you may not like the _way_ he said it, what he said was constructive in the sense that he criticized a specific mistake and asked for a specific change in habitual behavior.
So despite not being entirely comfortable with his behavior, I don't think you've made your case.
Did I propose throwing money at the government as a solution? No. I am aware of the problems with government institutions. I'm also aware of their successes. Yes, problems of the sort you describe exist, but historically government facilities can and have done the same work now being done by contractors for a lot less money.
It's worth noting that the problems you describe are at least in part also the result of stupid top-down cost control measures. E.g., if it's time to replace the tires, why _doesn't_ the government employee have permission to spend the money?
Of course, your example is also nonsense—tires cost a fixed amount; there is no reason why it would be the case that buying one tire now and three later would be significantly costlier than buying four now. Labor per tire is the same in each case, except for the time spent getting the car on the lift. But I'm sure there are real examples like this, and for such examples that are common, it would certainly be worth doing something to address the problem. If it happens once every hundred events, it's probably not worth putting any effort into.
That's because the price of computers has been rising over time, doubling roughly every 1.5 years.
Oh, wait, I got the numerator and the denominator reversed. Dammit!
Yup. Likely what happened here is that the million-dollar security contractors gave the advice to do this bug hunt in the first place, and then provided the temporary replacement infrastructure, and walked away from the whole fiasco with a tidy profit. The reason this happens is because the government isn't generally allowed to hire people to do work like this, because "private industry is better." Of course, this sort of private industry is just a mechanism for siphoning off tax dollars, and the people who believe that hiring government employees to do government work is wasteful are actually responsible for fiascos like this, which are depressingly common.
Even when the contractors aren't crooked, the cost of employing them instead of federal employees is typically several times higher. But "corporations good, government wasteful." If we keep repeating that long enough maybe it will come true.
A blast of energy that bright at close range would have vaporized the death star. Otherwise your theory is sound.