I've seen lots of exaggeration on/., I've seen hysterical exaggeration, I've seen must-be-a-drool-proof-keyboard exaggeration, but now slashdot pushes human extinction?
Lets not forget that the most popular president in history supposedly "lost" the popular vote in 2016, which could only be possible because of mass voter fraud perpetrated by democrat and liberal soros globalists who want to undermine our democracy, confiscate our guns, and just destroy america.
Even in this day and age this has got to be snark. Please?
Indeed, you can study mathematics without any religion. You don't even need a silly game for it. Just read a nice math book, and learn some simple geometric programming. I think it's much more fun anyway.
The game is about more than only mathematics. It also explains the art and culture of these particular geometric figures. And yes, culture here includes an Islamic component. Just like a book about Japanese brush painting would quite likely refer to Zen Buddhism.
Of course, 'silly' and 'fun' is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I would say that this particular subject lends itself to interaction and hence a computer game. The great news is that you're not required to buy the game.
Hate speech is not "universally unacceptable" as what is considered as such is highly subjective, and whatever harmful effects it might have is even more so. Murder is pretty clear cut, and is harmful because someone is dead.
Again, Isis propaganda is "universally unacceptable" outside Isis circles and is a clear example of hate speech. I'm all in favor of a very high bar for hate speech, but some things just deserve to be outlawed.
I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
By that argument just about any punishment that is just a fine or a few months of jail would be ineffective. That's simply not true.
There is a difference between a bad law trying to accomplish a laudable goal and failing compared to outlawing a universally unacceptable action.
I get a bit dizzy of all the pretzel logic about this. Can you explain again why outlawing hate speech---hate speech being pretty much a 'universally unacceptable action'---is a bad idea, but outlawing murder is not? No, in both cases the success rate is not 100%, but yes, in both cases it helps to suppress it.
Qatar? Qatar? I've seen a lot of face-palm level deflection on this issue already, but this is a new one. Qatar! Give me a few minutes to get some popcorn, but then please explain what Qatar has to do with the price of butter in Paris, let alone fact that the US democratically elected a horror clown as president.
...
Ok, I'm ready. So you're saying Qatar funded some propagandists? Details please? And who are these Dem support[er]s wanting a worse relationship with Russia? Why? Why does this concern Qatar? Please explain.
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum.
So you're accusing Obama of spending money (presumably in the UK) to influence the Brexit referendum? Because that's what we're talking about. Not just giving an opinion, but spending money to influence opinion.
Don't you think it is dangerous for US democracy when foreign powers buy influence in it?
C'mon... we all learn as kids, "two wrongs don't make a right".
A second similar crime wouldn't cancel out the first. If you have any evidence election laws were violated by Hillary Clinton, she can be investigated TOO.
However, as she's not the POTUS, I expect that it would be a lower priority investigation.
So removing that category also removed them from existence and removes their profile data?
That straw man is old and tired. If a hotel bans prostitutes from plying their trade in the hotel, the hotel staff doesn't have the illusion that they are ending prostitution, they just don't want to be associated with prostitution.
Hopefully not. Because then all they have to do is beat you senseless, unlock your phone by pointing it at your unconscious face and deactivate the facial recognition feature to take it home.
Gee, and I thought the fingerprint sensor was easy to fool. Had I known Apple would give phone thieves a better feature just one generation later, I wouldn't have invested the effort to develop something.
Uhm, how is this worse than fingerprints? Before this `all you ha[d] to do' was beat you senseless, unlock your phone by using your unconscious finger, and deactivate.
For rather extreme values of 'all they have to do', of course, because this is kind of assault is quite prone to draw the attention of any passers-by.
Apple doesnt appear to realise that you can scale bitmaps to any size, especially on screen way better than most peoples eyes can handle (and with heavy GPUs that can trivially manage complex scaling algorithms) - so their resolutions are usually an exact multiples of the original iPhone.
Scaling is simply not as good as hand-made images for each resolution. Can your eyes handle it? Yes and no. For many people it is noticeable even if they can not express the difference.
You are expected to know this, because not to is blasphemy against the one great fashion.
I can make arguments that at least some forms of BASIC are superior to C.
Quite possible, for some application areas. However, the arguments Mr. Pournelle gave for BASIC and against C showed that he did not understand C, and that he was not aware that he did not understand it.
Language holy wars are something that has existed since Grace Hopper created the first compiler.
Yes, but they are only interesting if the arguments are solid; coming as poorly armed as Mr. Pournelle to these wars is just tedious, and tells more about the person than the languages involved.
Sigh. One more time: those are not examples of fake news, they are examples of reporters trying to report the truth and failing.
Fake news is when you tell a deliberate lie. Fake news is not when you make an honest mistake; it is not selective news; it is not spin; it is when you tell a falsehood, a porky pie, a fib, an invention, a deliberate misstatement, disinformation. Donald Trump seems to be easily confused about this term, and many of his followers as well, but it is really not so difficult. Not true and you know it == Fake News.
And how do you say that you don't like a news item? Well, you just say you don't like the news item. I admit it is quite a mouthful in a Twitter message, but hey, that's Twitter for you.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] push globalism and human extinction.
Wot?
I've seen lots of exaggeration on /., I've seen hysterical exaggeration, I've seen must-be-a-drool-proof-keyboard exaggeration, but now slashdot pushes human extinction?
I, err, ..... I give up.
Lets not forget that the most popular president in history supposedly "lost" the popular vote in 2016, which could only be possible because of mass voter fraud perpetrated by democrat and liberal soros globalists who want to undermine our democracy, confiscate our guns, and just destroy america.
Even in this day and age this has got to be snark. Please?
Indeed, you can study mathematics without any religion. You don't even need a silly game for it. Just read a nice math book, and learn some simple geometric programming. I think it's much more fun anyway.
The game is about more than only mathematics. It also explains the art and culture of these particular geometric figures. And yes, culture here includes an Islamic component. Just like a book about Japanese brush painting would quite likely refer to Zen Buddhism.
Of course, 'silly' and 'fun' is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I would say that this particular subject lends itself to interaction and hence a computer game. The great news is that you're not required to buy the game.
It means your hair is on fire.
What do you think the phrase 'non-urgent' means?
It is a stone fact there has been no warming of any kind, man-made or natural, in the past 20 years.
Surely you mean a stoned fact? Because that is the only way this makes any sense.
Politics is already eroding slashdot's credibility, stop making it worse, that's what the editors are for.
Finally somebody is asking some insightful questions, and you complain about politics? Sounds very much like 'LALA I don't want to hear it'.
Hate speech is not "universally unacceptable" as what is considered as such is highly subjective, and whatever harmful effects it might have is even more so. Murder is pretty clear cut, and is harmful because someone is dead.
Again, Isis propaganda is "universally unacceptable" outside Isis circles and is a clear example of hate speech. I'm all in favor of a very high bar for hate speech, but some things just deserve to be outlawed.
Because murder actually hurts someone and "hate speech" does not.
You really think that all that Isis propaganda online didn't hurt anybody? Because that's certainly an example of "hate speech".
I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
By that argument just about any punishment that is just a fine or a few months of jail would be ineffective. That's simply not true.
Simple question: do you think that postings on social media in favour of Isis are "advocating harming people"? Do you think this should be suppressed?
There is a difference between a bad law trying to accomplish a laudable goal and failing compared to outlawing a universally unacceptable action.
I get a bit dizzy of all the pretzel logic about this. Can you explain again why outlawing hate speech---hate speech being pretty much a 'universally unacceptable action'---is a bad idea, but outlawing murder is not? No, in both cases the success rate is not 100%, but yes, in both cases it helps to suppress it.
Qatar? Qatar? I've seen a lot of face-palm level deflection on this issue already, but this is a new one. Qatar! Give me a few minutes to get some popcorn, but then please explain what Qatar has to do with the price of butter in Paris, let alone fact that the US democratically elected a horror clown as president.
...
Ok, I'm ready. So you're saying Qatar funded some propagandists? Details please? And who are these Dem support[er]s wanting a worse relationship with Russia? Why? Why does this concern Qatar? Please explain.
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum.
So you're accusing Obama of spending money (presumably in the UK) to influence the Brexit referendum? Because that's what we're talking about. Not just giving an opinion, but spending money to influence opinion.
Don't you think it is dangerous for US democracy when foreign powers buy influence in it?
There is really no way to call them progressive, not even when comparing them to your Republicans.
There is no rational way, but ratio is not very important in US politics.
Sigh, you don't learn, do you?
Once more with feeling: If you have any evidence election laws were violated by Hillary Clinton, she can be investigated TOO.
Everything else is just deflection.
C'mon... we all learn as kids, "two wrongs don't make a right".
A second similar crime wouldn't cancel out the first. If you have any evidence election laws were violated by Hillary Clinton, she can be investigated TOO.
However, as she's not the POTUS, I expect that it would be a lower priority investigation.
So removing that category also removed them from existence and removes their profile data?
That straw man is old and tired. If a hotel bans prostitutes from plying their trade in the hotel, the hotel staff doesn't have the illusion that they are ending prostitution, they just don't want to be associated with prostitution.
Why is it that every story that's posted here has already been on Reddit for at least a couple days?
Slashdot is only making backups of stories from other sites.
You do know none of those is a socialist country, yes?
If you're standing on the North pole, every direction is South.
Hopefully not. Because then all they have to do is beat you senseless, unlock your phone by pointing it at your unconscious face and deactivate the facial recognition feature to take it home.
Gee, and I thought the fingerprint sensor was easy to fool. Had I known Apple would give phone thieves a better feature just one generation later, I wouldn't have invested the effort to develop something.
Uhm, how is this worse than fingerprints? Before this `all you ha[d] to do' was beat you senseless, unlock your phone by using your unconscious finger, and deactivate.
For rather extreme values of 'all they have to do', of course, because this is kind of assault is quite prone to draw the attention of any passers-by.
Apple doesnt appear to realise that you can scale bitmaps to any size, especially on screen way better than most peoples eyes can handle (and with heavy GPUs that can trivially manage complex scaling algorithms) - so their resolutions are usually an exact multiples of the original iPhone.
Scaling is simply not as good as hand-made images for each resolution. Can your eyes handle it? Yes and no. For many people it is noticeable even if they can not express the difference.
You are expected to know this, because not to is blasphemy against the one great fashion.
Expected by whom? Why do you care so much?
I can make arguments that at least some forms of BASIC are superior to C.
Quite possible, for some application areas. However, the arguments Mr. Pournelle gave for BASIC and against C showed that he did not understand C, and that he was not aware that he did not understand it.
Language holy wars are something that has existed since Grace Hopper created the first compiler.
Yes, but they are only interesting if the arguments are solid; coming as poorly armed as Mr. Pournelle to these wars is just tedious, and tells more about the person than the languages involved.
Sigh. One more time: those are not examples of fake news, they are examples of reporters trying to report the truth and failing.
Fake news is when you tell a deliberate lie. Fake news is not when you make an honest mistake; it is not selective news; it is not spin; it is when you tell a falsehood, a porky pie, a fib, an invention, a deliberate misstatement, disinformation. Donald Trump seems to be easily confused about this term, and many of his followers as well, but it is really not so difficult. Not true and you know it == Fake News.
And how do you say that you don't like a news item? Well, you just say you don't like the news item. I admit it is quite a mouthful in a Twitter message, but hey, that's Twitter for you.
You think maybe we should stop interfering in everybody else's elections before we demand everyone else stop interfering in ours?
No. You can do both at the same time.