Yeah, sure. Watch this segment of Thunderf00t's video again. Thunderf00t explicitly showed her business, showed Yelp, and said, "Internet justice tends to be swift," and "If I was looking about getting my bath done or something, and I watched a video like this... about how reprehensibly their vice-president was acting, goddamn straight, I would take my business elsewhere." Did he explicitly tell his minions to attack her? No. Was it something he tacitly endorsed. You'd have to be pretty damn intellectually dishonest to claim he didn't. I mean, if someone like Anita Sarkeesian made the same sort of video, would you really be claiming her innocence in everything?
Regarding Laughing Witch's information. I didn't say it wasn't already publicly available, but I don't think you're being honest about how easy it was to find before Thunderf00t's campaign. Regardless of how easy it was to find, though, it's not like that absolves him for what he did.
Way to illustrate my point, by the way. The funny part is that you're acting essentially just like the SJWs, and you don't even see it.
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
I don't think that Hollywood (or at least, people creating stories for them) have run out of ideas; I think that they would rather get a fairly stable return on investment for simply rehashing existing stories that people already know and care about than risk an unknown return (or no return) on a new story that is unfamiliar to the public. If they lack imagination, it's at the executive and marketing levels. They've become too reliant on expensive actors and directors to draw crowds (driving up the cost of movies, thereby warranting a conservative approach), and have no clue how to market the actual story-line anymore.
This looks like a neat idea and all, and I'm sure that the open idea could work well, strictly considering temperature. That said, one reason why people desire to go home often comes down to the sense of privacy and solitude it provides. To do this, some isolation -- especially noise isolation -- from the outside world is needed. Unless you're somewhere quite rural, you're guaranteed to get a lot of racket (people chattering, motors running, dogs barking, etc.) from the outside world, and that's probably not often something that you'll want to put up with. To get around that, windows are shut, but, for a house like this, that means the temperature goes up. That would lead to some sort of air-conditioning requirement for many people (at least the hum of an air conditioner is temporary, and monotonous), which would seemingly blow through a big chunk of the energy savings.
The method Eidnes used is hardly anything new. Frankly, I'd be surprised if many existing clickbait headlines weren't generated in this way to begin with. After all, it'd be, I think, easier to run some statistical analysis on the headlines that get the most traffic, training the generator accordingly, than to try to conceive of catchy-sounding headlines for every piece.
Still, it's obvious he put some effort into this, and it's somewhat interesting to read about, so at least there's that.
Don't know about you guys but I'm ready for a ski resort on Olympus Mons. 26km vertical in a single decent? Sign me up!
A bit off topic, but that nearly 26km vertical averages a grade of only about 5 degrees at the flanks (the steeper parts of the mountain), and you'd be descending with roughly 1/3 of Earth's gravity. Sounds more like that'd be an exceptionally long and exceptionally dull bunny slope.
Oh, another fun fact: If you were actually standing near the summit of the mountain, you'd have no idea since the slope of the mountain actually extends beyond the horizon.
Yep, I know I'd want a guy who's voluntarily played Russian Roulette to occupy the presidency. No wonder he wants to emphasize who he'd run with, or who'd run in his place.
Gravity exists because spacetime, curved by massive bodies, effectively changes what it means to have inertial reference frames from the more intuitive Newtonian notion. Take away the massive bodies and spacetime flattens, straight lines are Euclidean, and gravitational attraction goes away. Gravity, then, exists due to the interaction between mass and spacetime.
Of course, you could ask why that interaction exists, and keep asking the question as more explanations are found. I don't know that that'd ever end, but I guess you could eventually hit some inherent axiom or self-referential property of nature. If you're asking for some ultimate underlying conscious intention, though, you may find yourself disappointed, or at least you should accept the possibility that such a question may simply not apply.
Worms are basically a subset of viruses. They are self-replicating malware, just like typical viruses, but don't rely on a human action, such as installation of an infected application.
Assuming that your post wasn't intended as a joke (the dubious claim of viral invulnerability leads me to think it was a joke), how exactly is vulnerability to something like the worm mentioned okay to brush off (claiming mis-classification is a tactic to steer conversation away from the subject discussed)?
This story only recently broke, and already there are several comments intended to preempt objections, ostensibly by lonely white males yearning for an open forum to complain about SJWs and discuss fantasies, as if that preemption had a deep grounding in some service to civility. It's both amusing and saddening to see that type of naivete on display.
While it'd be nice if people would abide by "community guidelines" for civil communication in a public forum, both in terms of proposing arguments and reacting to them, any time such standards are imposed as a filter, broad abuses of those guidelines soon follow. I mean, one of the few things as enticing as spreading your own idea is quashing those ideas you think are wrong. When argumentation fails to combat a competing idea, either because the idea actually has merit or because its proponents are unrelenting in their dogged adherence to it, few people possess the ability to just set the argument aside and move on. When there's a mechanism in place to censor those arguments, right or wrong, people will use it, justifying their censorship with all manner of rationalizations.
For example, lets consider something like the deservedly maligned Atheism+, a group ostensibly meant for atheists who care about social justice issues. At the heart of their charter is a divisive "us vs. them" mentality for anyone opposed to their exact ideology, complete with community expulsion and censorship of opposing views. I won't go into detail regarding their practices, since others have already done so, but I will pose this question: Is a movement so bent on communication controls really their to promote understanding, or domination?
Finally, while I don't necessarily think that Reddit will become something nearly so toxic as Atheism+, I think it's important to understand how Atheism+ got where it is, and understand that the principles that got it there don't have to be relegated to minor movements. Though I don't personally go there often, Reddit is important, and is important for several people. To undermine the foundations of free speech upon which it is built is to empower those seeking domination (who don't have to be governments), and it can happen faster and on a broader scale than many of us would care to consider.
That statistic is for all college grads, though; not just those graduating with a CS degree. While that is noteworthy, it's not really relevant to the discussion on how CS grads are fairing.
Note that those orchards took years to grow, and were grown in the first place because annual crops, like tomatoes and melons, weren't nearly as profitable. If you had worked as a responsible citizen to prop up legislation meant to curtail orchard growth in favor more flexible annuals, perhaps almonds wouldn't present a noticeable draw on water today. Or maybe if you had agreed to pay higher prices for annuals, farmers wouldn't have been incentivized to grow almonds in the first place. At this point, though, it's exceedingly unfair to tell farmers that they just need to forfeit years of effort and expenses to satisfy the water demands of people like you. I mean, can you really blame farmers for planting more profitable crops when nobody raised any objections?
By the way, another way to end the California water crisis would be for people like you to leave. Oh, don't like that suggestion?
The $750 million of "annual run rate synergies" and "track record of rapid deleveraging" should give you a sense of how much and how fast Avago will slice from Broadcom:
That's undoubtedly true, but not, I think, the intended market for Uber.
Similar to how you probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) use Uber to transport a VIP, you wouldn't use Uber's product service to transport high-value, hard to replace goods. Instead, this service would be useful for goods which are readily replaceable, and just need to get from A to B. If something happens on the first attempt, you reroute with a 2nd attempt, deliver the good, and get reimbursed for the good that was lost. They'd essentially be treating goods as packets, and I'd think that could work pretty well for several cases, but certainly not cases that the service wasn't designed to accommodate.
What evidence would convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
It's just like those "scientific" crazies to attempt to convince good, skeptical geocentrists that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, right? I mean, there's tons of evidence to support a geocentric view, and Captain Janeway even narrated a documentary about it. Given the community of geocentrists thriving in the face of supposed evidence to the contrary, clearly, the "science" of heliocentrism is really just another religion in disguise.
Seriously, why was this marked insightful? Maybe the mods confused insight with incite?
1) "overwhelming scientific evidence" applies to my mention of vaccines and evolution. My point, obviously lost on you, is that people who reject such knowledge despite mountains of data and cross validation will dismiss a study regarding genetic modification outright; the substance of the study will be rejected without even any examination.
2) "impossible to prove a negative" applies in any scenario, not just safety regarding genetically modified crops. For example, you can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't a link between vaccines and autism, but you can show, through widespread observation and statistical analysis, that such a link appears to be incredibly unlikely.
The point of the article, which you seem to have ignored, is that ingestion of genetically modified crops has been studied for quite some time, across multiple generations of livestock, by multiple independent groups (24 of them) with no apparent ill effects. This situation is very similar to vaccines in that there is a significant benefit of genetically modified crops (e.g. increased yields and pest resistance), and little in the way of substantial drawbacks (besides being politically incorrect, of course). Being that you seem to fall into the category of "I don't care what's said, I'm right you're wrong" I know this point probably means nothing to you, but you're welcome to scrutinize the 24 studies mentioned.
3) I know you're just trying to troll, but I'm always up for more education. Since you know so much about what I do or do not know, could you please point me at the peer reviewed articles that fill in my knowledge gaps? I'm especially interested in those articles which dispassionately enumerate the observed and measured (not just theoretical) risks associated with genetically engineered crops, and which examine the projected costs of such risks (not just monetarily, of course) relative to benefits. Thanks.
perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology
Yeah, because people who reject vaccines and evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence are going to suddenly embrace reason concerning genetically modified crops. If anything, this study will somehow reinforce their views. Already, I see others on/. -- people who really should know better -- cooking up conspiracy theories.
The bounds of a patent are determined by what is claimed in the claims, not the summary. Now, the summary should describe the gist of the patented invention, and the claims should be supported by the written description and other portions of the patent but, when it comes to infringement, it is what is claimed that counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sure. Watch this segment of Thunderf00t's video again. Thunderf00t explicitly showed her business, showed Yelp, and said, "Internet justice tends to be swift," and "If I was looking about getting my bath done or something, and I watched a video like this... about how reprehensibly their vice-president was acting, goddamn straight, I would take my business elsewhere." Did he explicitly tell his minions to attack her? No. Was it something he tacitly endorsed. You'd have to be pretty damn intellectually dishonest to claim he didn't. I mean, if someone like Anita Sarkeesian made the same sort of video, would you really be claiming her innocence in everything?
Regarding Laughing Witch's information. I didn't say it wasn't already publicly available, but I don't think you're being honest about how easy it was to find before Thunderf00t's campaign. Regardless of how easy it was to find, though, it's not like that absolves him for what he did.
Way to illustrate my point, by the way. The funny part is that you're acting essentially just like the SJWs, and you don't even see it.
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
I don't think that Hollywood (or at least, people creating stories for them) have run out of ideas; I think that they would rather get a fairly stable return on investment for simply rehashing existing stories that people already know and care about than risk an unknown return (or no return) on a new story that is unfamiliar to the public. If they lack imagination, it's at the executive and marketing levels. They've become too reliant on expensive actors and directors to draw crowds (driving up the cost of movies, thereby warranting a conservative approach), and have no clue how to market the actual story-line anymore.
This looks like a neat idea and all, and I'm sure that the open idea could work well, strictly considering temperature. That said, one reason why people desire to go home often comes down to the sense of privacy and solitude it provides. To do this, some isolation -- especially noise isolation -- from the outside world is needed. Unless you're somewhere quite rural, you're guaranteed to get a lot of racket (people chattering, motors running, dogs barking, etc.) from the outside world, and that's probably not often something that you'll want to put up with. To get around that, windows are shut, but, for a house like this, that means the temperature goes up. That would lead to some sort of air-conditioning requirement for many people (at least the hum of an air conditioner is temporary, and monotonous), which would seemingly blow through a big chunk of the energy savings.
The method Eidnes used is hardly anything new. Frankly, I'd be surprised if many existing clickbait headlines weren't generated in this way to begin with. After all, it'd be, I think, easier to run some statistical analysis on the headlines that get the most traffic, training the generator accordingly, than to try to conceive of catchy-sounding headlines for every piece.
Still, it's obvious he put some effort into this, and it's somewhat interesting to read about, so at least there's that.
I've confirmed that the star has a Dyson Sphere by consulting the comprehensive Library of Babel. Concealed in page 304 of one of its texts is the sentence, "kic eight four six two eight five two is a star fifteen hundred light years away, which is known for its elaborate dyson sphere." Clearly, we will have much to discuss our new sphere-building brethren.
Don't know about you guys but I'm ready for a ski resort on Olympus Mons. 26km vertical in a single decent? Sign me up!
A bit off topic, but that nearly 26km vertical averages a grade of only about 5 degrees at the flanks (the steeper parts of the mountain), and you'd be descending with roughly 1/3 of Earth's gravity. Sounds more like that'd be an exceptionally long and exceptionally dull bunny slope.
Oh, another fun fact: If you were actually standing near the summit of the mountain, you'd have no idea since the slope of the mountain actually extends beyond the horizon.
Yep, I know I'd want a guy who's voluntarily played Russian Roulette to occupy the presidency. No wonder he wants to emphasize who he'd run with, or who'd run in his place.
Gravity exists because spacetime, curved by massive bodies, effectively changes what it means to have inertial reference frames from the more intuitive Newtonian notion. Take away the massive bodies and spacetime flattens, straight lines are Euclidean, and gravitational attraction goes away. Gravity, then, exists due to the interaction between mass and spacetime.
Of course, you could ask why that interaction exists, and keep asking the question as more explanations are found. I don't know that that'd ever end, but I guess you could eventually hit some inherent axiom or self-referential property of nature. If you're asking for some ultimate underlying conscious intention, though, you may find yourself disappointed, or at least you should accept the possibility that such a question may simply not apply.
Worms are basically a subset of viruses. They are self-replicating malware, just like typical viruses, but don't rely on a human action, such as installation of an infected application.
Assuming that your post wasn't intended as a joke (the dubious claim of viral invulnerability leads me to think it was a joke), how exactly is vulnerability to something like the worm mentioned okay to brush off (claiming mis-classification is a tactic to steer conversation away from the subject discussed)?
Wish I had mod points for this one :)
It's an acronym for Social Justice Warrior.
This story only recently broke, and already there are several comments intended to preempt objections, ostensibly by lonely white males yearning for an open forum to complain about SJWs and discuss fantasies, as if that preemption had a deep grounding in some service to civility. It's both amusing and saddening to see that type of naivete on display.
While it'd be nice if people would abide by "community guidelines" for civil communication in a public forum, both in terms of proposing arguments and reacting to them, any time such standards are imposed as a filter, broad abuses of those guidelines soon follow. I mean, one of the few things as enticing as spreading your own idea is quashing those ideas you think are wrong. When argumentation fails to combat a competing idea, either because the idea actually has merit or because its proponents are unrelenting in their dogged adherence to it, few people possess the ability to just set the argument aside and move on. When there's a mechanism in place to censor those arguments, right or wrong, people will use it, justifying their censorship with all manner of rationalizations.
For example, lets consider something like the deservedly maligned Atheism+, a group ostensibly meant for atheists who care about social justice issues. At the heart of their charter is a divisive "us vs. them" mentality for anyone opposed to their exact ideology, complete with community expulsion and censorship of opposing views. I won't go into detail regarding their practices, since others have already done so, but I will pose this question: Is a movement so bent on communication controls really their to promote understanding, or domination?
Finally, while I don't necessarily think that Reddit will become something nearly so toxic as Atheism+, I think it's important to understand how Atheism+ got where it is, and understand that the principles that got it there don't have to be relegated to minor movements. Though I don't personally go there often, Reddit is important, and is important for several people. To undermine the foundations of free speech upon which it is built is to empower those seeking domination (who don't have to be governments), and it can happen faster and on a broader scale than many of us would care to consider.
That statistic is for all college grads, though; not just those graduating with a CS degree. While that is noteworthy, it's not really relevant to the discussion on how CS grads are fairing.
I got a laugh... Not sure why you were down-modded for a clever joke.
It's rather difficult to fallow an orchard...
Note that those orchards took years to grow, and were grown in the first place because annual crops, like tomatoes and melons, weren't nearly as profitable. If you had worked as a responsible citizen to prop up legislation meant to curtail orchard growth in favor more flexible annuals, perhaps almonds wouldn't present a noticeable draw on water today. Or maybe if you had agreed to pay higher prices for annuals, farmers wouldn't have been incentivized to grow almonds in the first place. At this point, though, it's exceedingly unfair to tell farmers that they just need to forfeit years of effort and expenses to satisfy the water demands of people like you. I mean, can you really blame farmers for planting more profitable crops when nobody raised any objections?
By the way, another way to end the California water crisis would be for people like you to leave. Oh, don't like that suggestion?
http://investors.avagotech.com...
In my experience, higher-ups for mergers like this aren't afraid to cut until it hurts, then hire back later (if absolutely necessary).
I guess apiary-minded sheikhs better plan their visits to blonde entomologists with care...
That's undoubtedly true, but not, I think, the intended market for Uber.
Similar to how you probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) use Uber to transport a VIP, you wouldn't use Uber's product service to transport high-value, hard to replace goods. Instead, this service would be useful for goods which are readily replaceable, and just need to get from A to B. If something happens on the first attempt, you reroute with a 2nd attempt, deliver the good, and get reimbursed for the good that was lost. They'd essentially be treating goods as packets, and I'd think that could work pretty well for several cases, but certainly not cases that the service wasn't designed to accommodate.
It's just like those "scientific" crazies to attempt to convince good, skeptical geocentrists that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, right? I mean, there's tons of evidence to support a geocentric view, and Captain Janeway even narrated a documentary about it. Given the community of geocentrists thriving in the face of supposed evidence to the contrary, clearly, the "science" of heliocentrism is really just another religion in disguise.
Seriously, why was this marked insightful? Maybe the mods confused insight with incite?
I'm all for skepticism, I'd just prefer that people actually look at a study before allowing their skepticism to turn into flat out rejection.
Ok, a few points:
1) "overwhelming scientific evidence" applies to my mention of vaccines and evolution. My point, obviously lost on you, is that people who reject such knowledge despite mountains of data and cross validation will dismiss a study regarding genetic modification outright; the substance of the study will be rejected without even any examination.
2) "impossible to prove a negative" applies in any scenario, not just safety regarding genetically modified crops. For example, you can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't a link between vaccines and autism, but you can show, through widespread observation and statistical analysis, that such a link appears to be incredibly unlikely.
The point of the article, which you seem to have ignored, is that ingestion of genetically modified crops has been studied for quite some time, across multiple generations of livestock, by multiple independent groups (24 of them) with no apparent ill effects. This situation is very similar to vaccines in that there is a significant benefit of genetically modified crops (e.g. increased yields and pest resistance), and little in the way of substantial drawbacks (besides being politically incorrect, of course). Being that you seem to fall into the category of "I don't care what's said, I'm right you're wrong" I know this point probably means nothing to you, but you're welcome to scrutinize the 24 studies mentioned.
3) I know you're just trying to troll, but I'm always up for more education. Since you know so much about what I do or do not know, could you please point me at the peer reviewed articles that fill in my knowledge gaps? I'm especially interested in those articles which dispassionately enumerate the observed and measured (not just theoretical) risks associated with genetically engineered crops, and which examine the projected costs of such risks (not just monetarily, of course) relative to benefits. Thanks.
perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology
Yeah, because people who reject vaccines and evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence are going to suddenly embrace reason concerning genetically modified crops. If anything, this study will somehow reinforce their views. Already, I see others on /. -- people who really should know better -- cooking up conspiracy theories.
The bounds of a patent are determined by what is claimed in the claims, not the summary. Now, the summary should describe the gist of the patented invention, and the claims should be supported by the written description and other portions of the patent but, when it comes to infringement, it is what is claimed that counts.
Not until you mentioned it... Thanks for that, by the way.