Not only does this exclude those who self-identify as gender neutral or fluid (among many other identities), it just assumes that longer hair is enough to signify womynhood, which is a clear nod to the patriarchy!
In all seriousness, though, this is a private company adding to their services. If it really bugs you that much, don't use Google's services (there are alternatives).
HDDs will stick around for a while -- even tape still exists for some circumstances -- but they really do not compare to SSDs in the long run, and even enterprise settings are moving massively toward SSDs. In those enterprise settings, the performance of SSDs over HDDs is just too compelling (including what it means for the bottom line), so pretty much every cloud-oriented company (speaking of both consumer-facing and internal storage) is making the switch. By the way, in that setting, you're talking about all sorts of requirements on performance and reliability, and SSDs as well as HDDs are priced far in excess of consumer-grade stuff of equivalent capacity (and are far more capable), so don't think that the prices you see at Wal Mart reflect the prices paid by storage-requiring industries.
Okay, how about just straight-up mammalian nature, then. Can you point to any mammals that fully cooperate, and don't do things like horde individually, or defend territory against others (even of the same species) not in the same social group? Remember, this needs to be generally true, not anecdotal. This isn't a cultural trait, it's inherent.
I don't recall saying anything like "anarcho-capitalism is the solution," and I wasn't extolling competitiveness as a virtue; I was illustrating how competitiveness, if possessed by even a small amount of people, will destabilize any ideal balance obtained through cooperation, and will snowball after that. Also, pure market-based capitalism suffers from similar problems not all that dissimilar to communism, which is why nobody uses capitalism by itself. The issue with communism, though, is that it's pretty much incompatible with other economic theories, even socialism, so its failings can't really be mitigated like the failings of capitalism can.
The fact that you think a critique of communism is an endorsement of pure capitalism is, I think, very telling.
Oh come on. If something is seems good on paper, but turns out to be bad in reality, that means that the theory is actually pretty much shit; you just haven't thought hard enough about it.
You can't find fault in the logic underlying Marxism? How about the central assumption that cooperation will naturally overcome competitiveness? Does anything about what you've observed in human nature suggest that that's a valid assumption across the entire species (not just some exceptions)? I mean, think of the prisoners dilemma, and extend that across broader society. All it takes is one group of people understanding that collusion, at the expense of the collective, can produce an outcomes that vastly favor themselves, and you've got yourself a power/resource imbalance. See every failed communist state ever.
No amount of LGBT tie-ins can keep the spotlight from shining on what this movie appears to be: a Fast and the Furious knock-off. Who cares if Sulu is gay or not? The movie looks like shit that is completely out of touch with the Star Trek franchise, and there's no way I'm attending the theatrical release.
My favorite example was divulged in Lance's discussion with Joe Rogan. According to him (and, I guess, consider the source), cyclists have bitten down on a piece of cork tied to fishing line, pulled by a vehicle ahead. Getting pulled along by your teeth just to get a tiny bit extra seems right up there on the ridiculous meter.
The saddle packs are only used in the standard kits; there are other kits that hide the batteries in a water-bottle, for example. Femke Van den Driessche was recently banned for using one such hidden-away setup (the button to engage the motor was even hidden in the handlebar tape), and it certainly wasn't evident by glancing that the bike was rigged.
From the article, the plan is to use a natural gas powered turbine as the means of electricity generation; it's designed to never plug-in to the grid to recharge. The economies of scale that might apply to power plant level CO2 sequestration do not apply here.
I have no problem with labels when they actually describe someone or a situation, and I'd say that there are plenty of reasons why Trump could be labeled a "jingoistic plutocrat." My issue is when allegations like racism, which should be regarded fairly seriously, are tossed around simply out of disdain or disagreement. Also, while I'd agree that Trump has said racially insensitive things, that's quite different from actual racism. That's why, I think, that someone like Gregory Cheadle didn't take serious offense to Trump when he got singled out as "my African-American [supporter] over here," though it certainly would have been a much better received story if he had, especially since he wasn't even an actual supporter to begin with.
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country
Way to prove the GP's point.
Trump has said some stupid and insensitive shit, but can you point to something that was actually racist? Keep in mind that racism entails an overall declaration that some race is inherently better than some other race. Racism does not apply to nationality. Racism does not apply to religion. Racism does not apply to class. Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
To be clear, I don't support Trump, and there is no conceivable way I'll vote for him. His policies (for example, the trillions in debt his tax plan would incur even over Hillary's) are are idiotic, and I find his demagoguery to be repugnant, and a poor fit for the office. Equally repugnant, though, is when someone spews out a hackneyed "racist!" label because, y'know, reasons.
Anybody else get flashes of repeated shocking after reading the summary? It's been a while since I played that game, but I distinctly remember hating the spider-bots. Following the link, the bots even resemble those from the game...
Zeno's paradoxes apply to the jump from continuous to discrete mathematics. Culling 0.01% of a given population is not an exercise in continuous math, it's very obviously discrete (unless you think there are infinitely many people inhabiting the earth).
Much as I'd hate to donate to a huge corporation like Google (and that is what they are, even if they're not as bad as some other corps), this case is bigger than even them, at least, speaking as a developer. Given the split jury before, I'm not sure that they have what it will take to overcome Oracle, and Oracle badly needs to lose this. I'd be happy to contribute to Google's legal defense for this (and only this) case, but I doubt there's a way to do that. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate being set straight.
I'd say that the AC can read rather well... Your implication in referencing that Salon article (really? Salon?) is that Nestlé is a nefarious corporate entity in California, profiting from a water shortage that it is helping to produce. While that may be technically true in the most pedantic sense -- they sell bottled water, some of which comes from California taps which are being depleted -- it's not true in a practical sense as the AC pointed out. Moreover, Nestlé is acting well within their rights -- and the rights of the Native American populations that they've partnered with -- according to state laws that Californians agreed to abide by. While it's fine if Californians want to change those laws, it's bullshit to act as if Nestlé is evil (it may be, but not due to this issue) for conducting business as usual when that business A) isn't as impactful as the article would like to suggest and B) is well within the laws of the land.
Seems that someone just called you out on your bullshit, and deservedly so.
This really deserves to be modded up. It's ridiculous to equate households to individuals, and to assume that a proportion receiving some benefits are likely receiving maximum benefits. Also, can anyone actually name a program aimed at reducing bureaucracy that actually succeeded... I mean, on a large, federal scale? Something unintended always comes about with these sorts of programs, and I have no faith that there will be any savings in oversight, compliance, or any number of other bureaucratic requirements.
I remember watching Boston Dynamic's BigDog demonstration, and being thoroughly impressed by the robot's ability to maintain balance and regain footing when kicked or slipping on ice. That said, the video also demonstrated exactly the Marine's concern, but I thought that they'd be able to reduce hardware requirements and increase battery efficiency to the point of overcoming the gas engine requirement. I guess that battery efficiency (and requisite durability) just hasn't gotten to that point yet, or gasoline was just specified as a requirement.
It's a shame this didn't work out. I could see the benefit of having a pack mule that won't spook, hee-haw randomly, or refuse commands.
I'm in a similar boat, only on the IC side of things...
Maybe the answer is California (doesn't seem to be anywhere in the Midwest or West). To me, though, that environment seems to have a lot of people "crushing it" who are really just crushing whatever financially independent future they might have had. I wonder how many truly succeed there (and for how long), and how many end up attempting to set up shop with some organic fusion bar or whatever... not that there's anything wrong with organic fusion bars.
The high pH the river water is more prone to carrying particulate lead (lead from the poor plumbing infrastructure) than the lower pH water that had been used before switching sources. That being the case, the water source switch had an indirect impact on lead concentrations in water ultimately provided to Flint's citizenry; it wasn't that the Flint River was just inundated with lead to begin with. Here's a paper to better illustrate how that indirection isn't as bullshitty as you seem to think.
What the AC said was a bit overblown, but, then again, so was your response... as was your snarky (and not at all clever) retort to ShanghaiBill.
The AC's point wasn't that something like MS releasing source code is entirely altruistic; their point was that, if there's any hint of self-interest, assholes looking to assert their own moral high-ground by pointing out flaws in others will jump all over that self-interest. ShanghaiBill's point was that, yeah, self-interest may exist, but that doesn't mean that the act itself lacks any altruism, or that it can't still be beneficial to everyone, overall.
ShanghaiBill also wasn't saying that people shouldn't criticize anything, or even that people shouldn't criticize good deeds -- I don't even know how you came to that conclusion (unless you just like to set up painfully obvious strawmen). Pretty clearly, he was saying that there is such a thing as constructive criticism, and criticism that doesn't benefit anyone (aside from, maybe, the critic). Those that choose the latter, as you have, are generally just looking to stir shit in an effort to see how high on the douchebag scale they can ascend.
By the way, the AC was correct about those attempting to prove themselves holier-than-thou: they're always on the lookout for any misstep by anyone. Such criticism is easy (and lazy) since nobody is perfect, and, if you buy into that type of criticism, ultimately cannibalistic. There will, after all, always be someone waiting to catch you in such a misstep, and someone waiting to catch them, and so-on.
What you've hit on is a common objection to the Chinese Room argument: the operator may not have any understanding of the symbols being manipulated, but the system as a whole does. Still, people have a problem accepting emergent properties, so the argument persists anyway.
Great plan... until that drone misidentifies someone else for the stupid fuckup (creating more anti-whoever sent the drone sentiment), and that stupid fuckup lives to take out a dozen or so non-fuckups before they finally go.
Why is this even reported? This suit isn't going to go anywhere (unless AMD's lawyers are extremely incompetent, and the judge is extremely incapable of understanding basics about computer architecture and ISAs).
The AMD cores shared an FPU, sure, but sharing a resource doesn't mean that cores cannot execute simultaneously. The AMD cores still have independent integer-based execution units (instruction registers, register files, ALUs, branch counters, etc.), after all, and are fully capable of executing integer instructions simultaneously (which accounts for the vast majority of instructions under typical loading).
Careful now, there's real money to be had (by both sides) pandering to those overly sensitive to this menial stuff. Oh, and you just initiated a countdown for some butt-hurt keyboard warrior to come to the defense of their cause saying, "there is no moral equivalency" for whatever side they fall on.
Perhaps you think it was all coincidental that her business just happened to get blasted the day Thunderf00t made his video?
Look, pretty clearly, people weren't thinking about posting poor reviews about Laughing Witch's business before Thunderf00t made his video. The subsequent video that he released, in which he's obviously reveling in all of the shit-slinging, also shows that he's not opposed to their actions. How you can claim that he isn't tacitly endorsing the tactic is beyond me.
I love how you say his followers "contact a business" as if they're just leaving friendly notes about the unethical actions of their vice president, by the way. They are pretty clearly seeking to lower the business's rating, not just make contact. These reviews often lie about the business's services, and, at a very basic level, violate the terms of review sites like Yelp, where you're supposed to actually have done business with whomever you review before writing the review. This is just pathetic, and the fact that people seem to think it justified is mystifying.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only does this exclude those who self-identify as gender neutral or fluid (among many other identities), it just assumes that longer hair is enough to signify womynhood, which is a clear nod to the patriarchy!
In all seriousness, though, this is a private company adding to their services. If it really bugs you that much, don't use Google's services (there are alternatives).
HDDs will stick around for a while -- even tape still exists for some circumstances -- but they really do not compare to SSDs in the long run, and even enterprise settings are moving massively toward SSDs. In those enterprise settings, the performance of SSDs over HDDs is just too compelling (including what it means for the bottom line), so pretty much every cloud-oriented company (speaking of both consumer-facing and internal storage) is making the switch. By the way, in that setting, you're talking about all sorts of requirements on performance and reliability, and SSDs as well as HDDs are priced far in excess of consumer-grade stuff of equivalent capacity (and are far more capable), so don't think that the prices you see at Wal Mart reflect the prices paid by storage-requiring industries.
Okay, how about just straight-up mammalian nature, then. Can you point to any mammals that fully cooperate, and don't do things like horde individually, or defend territory against others (even of the same species) not in the same social group? Remember, this needs to be generally true, not anecdotal. This isn't a cultural trait, it's inherent.
I don't recall saying anything like "anarcho-capitalism is the solution," and I wasn't extolling competitiveness as a virtue; I was illustrating how competitiveness, if possessed by even a small amount of people, will destabilize any ideal balance obtained through cooperation, and will snowball after that. Also, pure market-based capitalism suffers from similar problems not all that dissimilar to communism, which is why nobody uses capitalism by itself. The issue with communism, though, is that it's pretty much incompatible with other economic theories, even socialism, so its failings can't really be mitigated like the failings of capitalism can.
The fact that you think a critique of communism is an endorsement of pure capitalism is, I think, very telling.
Oh come on. If something is seems good on paper, but turns out to be bad in reality, that means that the theory is actually pretty much shit; you just haven't thought hard enough about it.
You can't find fault in the logic underlying Marxism? How about the central assumption that cooperation will naturally overcome competitiveness? Does anything about what you've observed in human nature suggest that that's a valid assumption across the entire species (not just some exceptions)? I mean, think of the prisoners dilemma, and extend that across broader society. All it takes is one group of people understanding that collusion, at the expense of the collective, can produce an outcomes that vastly favor themselves, and you've got yourself a power/resource imbalance. See every failed communist state ever.
No amount of LGBT tie-ins can keep the spotlight from shining on what this movie appears to be: a Fast and the Furious knock-off. Who cares if Sulu is gay or not? The movie looks like shit that is completely out of touch with the Star Trek franchise, and there's no way I'm attending the theatrical release.
My favorite example was divulged in Lance's discussion with Joe Rogan. According to him (and, I guess, consider the source), cyclists have bitten down on a piece of cork tied to fishing line, pulled by a vehicle ahead. Getting pulled along by your teeth just to get a tiny bit extra seems right up there on the ridiculous meter.
The saddle packs are only used in the standard kits; there are other kits that hide the batteries in a water-bottle, for example. Femke Van den Driessche was recently banned for using one such hidden-away setup (the button to engage the motor was even hidden in the handlebar tape), and it certainly wasn't evident by glancing that the bike was rigged.
From the article, the plan is to use a natural gas powered turbine as the means of electricity generation; it's designed to never plug-in to the grid to recharge. The economies of scale that might apply to power plant level CO2 sequestration do not apply here.
I have no problem with labels when they actually describe someone or a situation, and I'd say that there are plenty of reasons why Trump could be labeled a "jingoistic plutocrat." My issue is when allegations like racism, which should be regarded fairly seriously, are tossed around simply out of disdain or disagreement. Also, while I'd agree that Trump has said racially insensitive things, that's quite different from actual racism. That's why, I think, that someone like Gregory Cheadle didn't take serious offense to Trump when he got singled out as "my African-American [supporter] over here," though it certainly would have been a much better received story if he had, especially since he wasn't even an actual supporter to begin with.
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country
Way to prove the GP's point.
Trump has said some stupid and insensitive shit, but can you point to something that was actually racist? Keep in mind that racism entails an overall declaration that some race is inherently better than some other race. Racism does not apply to nationality. Racism does not apply to religion. Racism does not apply to class. Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
To be clear, I don't support Trump, and there is no conceivable way I'll vote for him. His policies (for example, the trillions in debt his tax plan would incur even over Hillary's) are are idiotic, and I find his demagoguery to be repugnant, and a poor fit for the office. Equally repugnant, though, is when someone spews out a hackneyed "racist!" label because, y'know, reasons.
Anybody else get flashes of repeated shocking after reading the summary? It's been a while since I played that game, but I distinctly remember hating the spider-bots. Following the link, the bots even resemble those from the game...
Zeno's paradoxes apply to the jump from continuous to discrete mathematics. Culling 0.01% of a given population is not an exercise in continuous math, it's very obviously discrete (unless you think there are infinitely many people inhabiting the earth).
Much as I'd hate to donate to a huge corporation like Google (and that is what they are, even if they're not as bad as some other corps), this case is bigger than even them, at least, speaking as a developer. Given the split jury before, I'm not sure that they have what it will take to overcome Oracle, and Oracle badly needs to lose this. I'd be happy to contribute to Google's legal defense for this (and only this) case, but I doubt there's a way to do that. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate being set straight.
I'd say that the AC can read rather well... Your implication in referencing that Salon article (really? Salon?) is that Nestlé is a nefarious corporate entity in California, profiting from a water shortage that it is helping to produce. While that may be technically true in the most pedantic sense -- they sell bottled water, some of which comes from California taps which are being depleted -- it's not true in a practical sense as the AC pointed out. Moreover, Nestlé is acting well within their rights -- and the rights of the Native American populations that they've partnered with -- according to state laws that Californians agreed to abide by. While it's fine if Californians want to change those laws, it's bullshit to act as if Nestlé is evil (it may be, but not due to this issue) for conducting business as usual when that business A) isn't as impactful as the article would like to suggest and B) is well within the laws of the land.
Seems that someone just called you out on your bullshit, and deservedly so.
This really deserves to be modded up. It's ridiculous to equate households to individuals, and to assume that a proportion receiving some benefits are likely receiving maximum benefits. Also, can anyone actually name a program aimed at reducing bureaucracy that actually succeeded... I mean, on a large, federal scale? Something unintended always comes about with these sorts of programs, and I have no faith that there will be any savings in oversight, compliance, or any number of other bureaucratic requirements.
I remember watching Boston Dynamic's BigDog demonstration, and being thoroughly impressed by the robot's ability to maintain balance and regain footing when kicked or slipping on ice. That said, the video also demonstrated exactly the Marine's concern, but I thought that they'd be able to reduce hardware requirements and increase battery efficiency to the point of overcoming the gas engine requirement. I guess that battery efficiency (and requisite durability) just hasn't gotten to that point yet, or gasoline was just specified as a requirement.
It's a shame this didn't work out. I could see the benefit of having a pack mule that won't spook, hee-haw randomly, or refuse commands.
I'm in a similar boat, only on the IC side of things...
Maybe the answer is California (doesn't seem to be anywhere in the Midwest or West). To me, though, that environment seems to have a lot of people "crushing it" who are really just crushing whatever financially independent future they might have had. I wonder how many truly succeed there (and for how long), and how many end up attempting to set up shop with some organic fusion bar or whatever... not that there's anything wrong with organic fusion bars.
The high pH the river water is more prone to carrying particulate lead (lead from the poor plumbing infrastructure) than the lower pH water that had been used before switching sources. That being the case, the water source switch had an indirect impact on lead concentrations in water ultimately provided to Flint's citizenry; it wasn't that the Flint River was just inundated with lead to begin with. Here's a paper to better illustrate how that indirection isn't as bullshitty as you seem to think.
What the AC said was a bit overblown, but, then again, so was your response... as was your snarky (and not at all clever) retort to ShanghaiBill.
The AC's point wasn't that something like MS releasing source code is entirely altruistic; their point was that, if there's any hint of self-interest, assholes looking to assert their own moral high-ground by pointing out flaws in others will jump all over that self-interest. ShanghaiBill's point was that, yeah, self-interest may exist, but that doesn't mean that the act itself lacks any altruism, or that it can't still be beneficial to everyone, overall.
ShanghaiBill also wasn't saying that people shouldn't criticize anything, or even that people shouldn't criticize good deeds -- I don't even know how you came to that conclusion (unless you just like to set up painfully obvious strawmen). Pretty clearly, he was saying that there is such a thing as constructive criticism, and criticism that doesn't benefit anyone (aside from, maybe, the critic). Those that choose the latter, as you have, are generally just looking to stir shit in an effort to see how high on the douchebag scale they can ascend.
By the way, the AC was correct about those attempting to prove themselves holier-than-thou: they're always on the lookout for any misstep by anyone. Such criticism is easy (and lazy) since nobody is perfect, and, if you buy into that type of criticism, ultimately cannibalistic. There will, after all, always be someone waiting to catch you in such a misstep, and someone waiting to catch them, and so-on.
What you've hit on is a common objection to the Chinese Room argument: the operator may not have any understanding of the symbols being manipulated, but the system as a whole does. Still, people have a problem accepting emergent properties, so the argument persists anyway.
Great plan... until that drone misidentifies someone else for the stupid fuckup (creating more anti-whoever sent the drone sentiment), and that stupid fuckup lives to take out a dozen or so non-fuckups before they finally go.
Why is this even reported? This suit isn't going to go anywhere (unless AMD's lawyers are extremely incompetent, and the judge is extremely incapable of understanding basics about computer architecture and ISAs).
The AMD cores shared an FPU, sure, but sharing a resource doesn't mean that cores cannot execute simultaneously. The AMD cores still have independent integer-based execution units (instruction registers, register files, ALUs, branch counters, etc.), after all, and are fully capable of executing integer instructions simultaneously (which accounts for the vast majority of instructions under typical loading).
Careful now, there's real money to be had (by both sides) pandering to those overly sensitive to this menial stuff. Oh, and you just initiated a countdown for some butt-hurt keyboard warrior to come to the defense of their cause saying, "there is no moral equivalency" for whatever side they fall on.
Perhaps you think it was all coincidental that her business just happened to get blasted the day Thunderf00t made his video?
Look, pretty clearly, people weren't thinking about posting poor reviews about Laughing Witch's business before Thunderf00t made his video. The subsequent video that he released, in which he's obviously reveling in all of the shit-slinging, also shows that he's not opposed to their actions. How you can claim that he isn't tacitly endorsing the tactic is beyond me.
I love how you say his followers "contact a business" as if they're just leaving friendly notes about the unethical actions of their vice president, by the way. They are pretty clearly seeking to lower the business's rating, not just make contact. These reviews often lie about the business's services, and, at a very basic level, violate the terms of review sites like Yelp, where you're supposed to actually have done business with whomever you review before writing the review. This is just pathetic, and the fact that people seem to think it justified is mystifying.