If you believe that humans ever base their choices on truly rational grounds, then you have a belief system based on provable nonsense. All human decisions are the result of subjectivity, socialisation, habit and random chance. Rational thought is an oxymoron.
just like many people with strong anti-gay sentiments are closeted homosexuals.
That's a dangerous line, and often comes across as being deliberately antagonistic. It has a tendency to alienate people rather than educate them.
I was once a total homophobe. This was because of my upbringing -- and most people over 30 will have been brought up in a largely homophobic society. As a homophobe, I did not enjoy being told by homosexuals that this proved I was a homosexual. It was an attack on my self-identity, and it left me with the unconscious choice between accepting that attack, or rejecting the person making that attack. The end result was an increasing distance as I made no effort to accept or understand.
What changed was when gay-rights campaigners Stonewall started putting posters up saying "Some people are gay. Get over it." It was a great big "what's it got to do with you?" and it changed my perceptions practically overnight.
By dissociating the question of gay rights from my self-identity, it was no longer a threat to me. It wasn't my job to have any strong feelings either way. I wasn't even being asked to believe it was natural, or to try to understand.
In the end, it's not my business, and it doesn't affect me, so why should I care? I get that now, and I'm not a homophobe. I don't think calling homophobes closet gays (and yes, some are, but there's a tendency to overgeneralise that to all homophobes) is going to do anyone the damnedest bit of good.
Rape is very common in the animal kingdom. The notion of consent is quite difficult in a species that doesn't have language, but even if you limit the definition of rape to the male holding down the female and forcing himself on her then it's still common. Go and see how ducks mate sometime - three or four of the males hold the female down and take it in turns. Or look at dolphins.
Deer too. Young bucks without a herd have been observed stalking herds and waiting for younger does to wander a little bit away from the pack. Then they pin her to the ground and take turns. Which sounds a lot like several events in recent years involving sports teams.
Sigh. This troll again. Let's make this a simple metaphor. To state that atheism is a religion would be like stating that "off" is a TV channel or that silence is a particular sound. Absence of a thing is not a form of the thing. It is simply the absence of it, no more, no less.
It's even simpler than that. "Belief in the supernatural" is not a religion, simply a characteristic that is shared by most (if not all) religions. "Belief that there is no supernatural" (i.e. nothing beyond nature and the material universe) is analogous to "belief in the supernatural". It is the specifics of belief combined with practices and rituals that make a religion. Atheism is only a principle, with no practices or rituals. Thus, while it is a belief, it is not a religion.
Yes, there are official alternatives to long-running construction projects, but in the US there is no legal requirement to stick to them.
I doubt there's anywhere outside of military zones where signposted routes are legally mandated. But before dynamic routing technology, there wasn't a need for such regulation.
See what happens when you quote someone out of context...? My argument wasn't strawman, I was trying to demonstrate that the argument isn't clear-cut. This is a border case. On one side of the border is the nonsensical "it's my road, I can do whatever I want with it" and on the other side the perfectly reasonable "it's my road, I can drive on it". Getting closer to the border: clearly untrue "it's my road, so I can choose the speed I drive at" vs the clearly true "I can drive on it, but I have to respect the speed limit."
What we have here is a case where by the letter of the law, yes, this sort of activity is legal. However, the people who drafted traffic laws didn't expect there would come a day when technology would dynamically ignore signposted routes. So it's technically legal, but subverts the intended use of public infrastructure. Both arguments here are legitimate -- no-one can definitively declare either position right or wrong.
Your argument is "the roads belong to all of us, so we can do what we like with them", which seems fair enough. But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale.
False analogy asshole, and not even a nice try, just complete bullshit.
It's not a false analogy. You want me to justify that? Justify your comment first.
It is not the UK, no, but unless US law mandates that all public roads are constructed at highway grade, the same underlying principles should apply. I understand this a temporary situation due to ongoing works, but I suspect that in the US you have the same concept of "diversion" as here -- an official alternative route to get you where you wanted to go. Much of these alternative routes are planned in advance, and roads are specifically built to withstand the extra load of functioning as a diverted route.
People straying off the diverted route is becoming a serious issue in the GPS age, as people follow their computers off-track and break the flow of traffic. Edinburgh Council had to block off loads of side streets during the recent city centre works to keep people on the path. Diversions are never as quick as the route they replace, but sticking to them is the fair and equitable thing to do. Greedily picking your own most convenient route leads to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation.
Those roads do not belong to property owners, residents, or communities (unless hey are private and gated). They belong to the tax-paying public, the owners are those users driving down the road!
Irrelevant -- it is a road with a specific intended purpose, and that purpose is not as a main thoroughfare. In the UK we call residential areas co-opted into mainstream use this way "rat runs", and they are a significant public safety problem. The turn-of-the-century approach to rat runs here was "traffic calming measures" (everything from blocking off one end of the road to speed bumps, cobblestones and choke-points where only one car can pass at a time, with priority given to cars leaving the area) and that was usually only required on fairly straight sections. The only real hazard that it let through was cavalier motorcycle couriers with an intimate local knowledge of backstreets (but even that wasn't much of a problem, as motorcyclists are allowed to "filter" through traffic jams anyway, so are happy to stay on major thoroughfares). Waze and similar speed-aware services now offer every user the knowledge of those motorcycle couriers, and direct people down roads that are not designed for that sort of traffic.
Your argument is "the roads belong to all of us, so we can do what we like with them", which seems fair enough. But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale. Why not? Because that's not what it's there for. The town hall may "belong" to me, but I can't just set up a woodworking studio in it, because that's not what it's there for..
Now simplistically a road is for "driving on", so this is a controversial case, but if you go to City Hall and check the documents, you'll be able to see what the road's intended usage was, and you'll see that "rat run" is not part of the planned spec.
The advice was to have a small probiotic drink 15 minutes or so before a meal. Another poster points out that heartburn is about the upper GI tract, not the lower, so not valid.
Whether it's the driver or a passenger using it, I still can't see any reason anyone would use the speed filter other than to show that they're going at a really high speed, and that is always going to be a risky thing. It might have a fringe use among tourists on Japan's bullet train, and it might have momentary popularity when Elon Musk finally builds his first hyperloop, but its biggest use will always be to clock speeding.
If 90% of Bud was drunk by people who were driving, then Bud might have a similar problem, regardless of any warnings on the bottle. But most drinkers are moderately responsible (as responsible as you can be while killing your liver with an intoxicating substance), so there is a large legitimate market for it.
In court, Snapchat will doubtless be called to prove a legitimate use for the speed filter. Due to the temporary nature of Snapchat messages, they're not going to be able to call on many stats to help them.
A shop-bought chicken is all good parts -- the only inedible thing they leave on is a bit of bone and cartilage, along with a few tendons and ligaments.
The seems like it would be ripe to develop prion diseases.
How so? If infected with any disease (virus, bacterium, prion or other), the batch would be tainted, but it would be relatively quick to identify and you could revert to an untainted batch to restart the culture.
B) Cheap meat often has added water, and the food tech industry has some very inventive ways of keeping the water in them.
C) Comparing fresh vs frozen ignores cost of logistics -- frozen food is cheaper because of its longer shelf-life and durability in transport, as well as the "no rush" element of delivery. There are plenty of frozen vegetables available.
I am not a vegetarian (I buy whole chickens and am learning to get more and more out of the carcase, with the aim of zero waste.)
Secondly, with the new digital audio interface standard
The question is will this be an extension of class compliant audio which basically everybody other than Microsoft is using, or are they going to try to obsolete a lot of hardware with a new standard?
Well I don't know about you, but I've never written a complete distributed fileserver that runs across thousands of VM instances and serves costumised webviews and APIs to thousands of clients worldwide. I've never written code that manages deduplication, which is quite a bugger to do because one slip and you could accidentally have people deleting each other's files. So I don't really know how many lines it would need in reality.
You have to be reasonably good at programming to use python effectively. Yes, you might be able to write a hello world program in 2 lines but its not a beginners language and neither are the concepts it uses
In what way? It's quite popular as a beginners' language and is used in quite a few schools. The main problem I see with it as a beginner language is that most curricula have a rather set idea of what is an "elementary" programming structure. Python's iteration over lists by member doesn't match with the assumption in many curricula that iteration is performed by index, for example. Or another example: the Scottish curriculum mentions arrays specifically, so you either have a choice of A) using Python non-Pythonically and fake it so that you always use a list like it was an array (and teach bad Python); B) use Python's lists and call them arrays (and teach bad general programming) or C) import an array class (and then have to faff around with methods rather than the Python built-ins, even if only having a constructor).
The other thing that seems to make Python difficult as a beginner language is... (wait for it)... (you knew someone was going to talk about it)... (come on, have you not guessed yet?)... semantic whitespace!. I haven't done a great deal of Python teaching yet (trainee teacher, I had one placement in a school using it), but the kids I saw using it really struggled with seeing code flow. Indents and dedents were seemingly at random. Trying to explain the concept of a "block" without some kind of clear visual enclosure is actually pretty hard.
Kids will learn directory structures at some point, but directories trees serve one purpose only: organise large amounts of data. If you don't have lots of stuff to organise, what's the point? When kids' literacy is at the point where they're using word processing, slideware etc for class work, they will have a use for directory structures, and they will learn it. You can teach that sort of thing in the abstract! Programming has incredible potential for school lessons because something actually happens, unlike sums on paper etc. I came through primary school when Logo was the "big thing" -- the teacher only understood the very basics, and quickly we were left to learn it from the book, but the whole scheme was designed to start us thinking about geometry as a concrete concept -- we were making polygons by turning fractions of 360 degrees, we noted that a regular hexagon of side length 10 was a lot bigger than a square with sides 10 units long (even if we didn't know what the actual area was). "Hello world" tasks and some of the basic games people do a lot of in Scratch don't teach that, so there's a lot of work to be done on making a curriculum that integrates computing into general learning, rather than treating it as a distinct and separate thread.
Slashdot Mirror
Anders Brevik: one time event. But in the US, it's such a common occurrence that you now have a category of mass shootings, with a "worst ever" award.
If you believe that humans ever base their choices on truly rational grounds, then you have a belief system based on provable nonsense. All human decisions are the result of subjectivity, socialisation, habit and random chance. Rational thought is an oxymoron.
just like many people with strong anti-gay sentiments are closeted homosexuals.
That's a dangerous line, and often comes across as being deliberately antagonistic. It has a tendency to alienate people rather than educate them.
I was once a total homophobe. This was because of my upbringing -- and most people over 30 will have been brought up in a largely homophobic society. As a homophobe, I did not enjoy being told by homosexuals that this proved I was a homosexual. It was an attack on my self-identity, and it left me with the unconscious choice between accepting that attack, or rejecting the person making that attack. The end result was an increasing distance as I made no effort to accept or understand.
What changed was when gay-rights campaigners Stonewall started putting posters up saying "Some people are gay. Get over it." It was a great big "what's it got to do with you?" and it changed my perceptions practically overnight.
By dissociating the question of gay rights from my self-identity, it was no longer a threat to me. It wasn't my job to have any strong feelings either way. I wasn't even being asked to believe it was natural, or to try to understand.
In the end, it's not my business, and it doesn't affect me, so why should I care? I get that now, and I'm not a homophobe. I don't think calling homophobes closet gays (and yes, some are, but there's a tendency to overgeneralise that to all homophobes) is going to do anyone the damnedest bit of good.
Erh... objection, I don't like being told I don't exist.
Sorry God. Didn't see you there.
But if you're omnipresent, why is this message only visible on Slashdot?
Rape is very common in the animal kingdom. The notion of consent is quite difficult in a species that doesn't have language, but even if you limit the definition of rape to the male holding down the female and forcing himself on her then it's still common. Go and see how ducks mate sometime - three or four of the males hold the female down and take it in turns. Or look at dolphins.
Deer too. Young bucks without a herd have been observed stalking herds and waiting for younger does to wander a little bit away from the pack. Then they pin her to the ground and take turns. Which sounds a lot like several events in recent years involving sports teams.
Sigh. This troll again. Let's make this a simple metaphor. To state that atheism is a religion would be like stating that "off" is a TV channel or that silence is a particular sound. Absence of a thing is not a form of the thing. It is simply the absence of it, no more, no less.
It's even simpler than that. "Belief in the supernatural" is not a religion, simply a characteristic that is shared by most (if not all) religions. "Belief that there is no supernatural" (i.e. nothing beyond nature and the material universe) is analogous to "belief in the supernatural". It is the specifics of belief combined with practices and rituals that make a religion. Atheism is only a principle, with no practices or rituals. Thus, while it is a belief, it is not a religion.
Yes, there are official alternatives to long-running construction projects, but in the US there is no legal requirement to stick to them.
I doubt there's anywhere outside of military zones where signposted routes are legally mandated. But before dynamic routing technology, there wasn't a need for such regulation.
I cannot stand
See what happens when you quote someone out of context...? My argument wasn't strawman, I was trying to demonstrate that the argument isn't clear-cut. This is a border case. On one side of the border is the nonsensical "it's my road, I can do whatever I want with it" and on the other side the perfectly reasonable "it's my road, I can drive on it". Getting closer to the border: clearly untrue "it's my road, so I can choose the speed I drive at" vs the clearly true "I can drive on it, but I have to respect the speed limit."
What we have here is a case where by the letter of the law, yes, this sort of activity is legal. However, the people who drafted traffic laws didn't expect there would come a day when technology would dynamically ignore signposted routes. So it's technically legal, but subverts the intended use of public infrastructure. Both arguments here are legitimate -- no-one can definitively declare either position right or wrong.
False analogy asshole, and not even a nice try, just complete bullshit.
It's not a false analogy. You want me to justify that? Justify your comment first.
It is not the UK, no, but unless US law mandates that all public roads are constructed at highway grade, the same underlying principles should apply. I understand this a temporary situation due to ongoing works, but I suspect that in the US you have the same concept of "diversion" as here -- an official alternative route to get you where you wanted to go. Much of these alternative routes are planned in advance, and roads are specifically built to withstand the extra load of functioning as a diverted route.
People straying off the diverted route is becoming a serious issue in the GPS age, as people follow their computers off-track and break the flow of traffic. Edinburgh Council had to block off loads of side streets during the recent city centre works to keep people on the path. Diversions are never as quick as the route they replace, but sticking to them is the fair and equitable thing to do. Greedily picking your own most convenient route leads to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation.
Those roads do not belong to property owners, residents, or communities (unless hey are private and gated). They belong to the tax-paying public, the owners are those users driving down the road!
Irrelevant -- it is a road with a specific intended purpose, and that purpose is not as a main thoroughfare. In the UK we call residential areas co-opted into mainstream use this way "rat runs", and they are a significant public safety problem. The turn-of-the-century approach to rat runs here was "traffic calming measures" (everything from blocking off one end of the road to speed bumps, cobblestones and choke-points where only one car can pass at a time, with priority given to cars leaving the area) and that was usually only required on fairly straight sections. The only real hazard that it let through was cavalier motorcycle couriers with an intimate local knowledge of backstreets (but even that wasn't much of a problem, as motorcyclists are allowed to "filter" through traffic jams anyway, so are happy to stay on major thoroughfares). Waze and similar speed-aware services now offer every user the knowledge of those motorcycle couriers, and direct people down roads that are not designed for that sort of traffic.
Your argument is "the roads belong to all of us, so we can do what we like with them", which seems fair enough. But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale. Why not? Because that's not what it's there for. The town hall may "belong" to me, but I can't just set up a woodworking studio in it, because that's not what it's there for..
Now simplistically a road is for "driving on", so this is a controversial case, but if you go to City Hall and check the documents, you'll be able to see what the road's intended usage was, and you'll see that "rat run" is not part of the planned spec.
The advice was to have a small probiotic drink 15 minutes or so before a meal. Another poster points out that heartburn is about the upper GI tract, not the lower, so not valid.
Whether it's the driver or a passenger using it, I still can't see any reason anyone would use the speed filter other than to show that they're going at a really high speed, and that is always going to be a risky thing. It might have a fringe use among tourists on Japan's bullet train, and it might have momentary popularity when Elon Musk finally builds his first hyperloop, but its biggest use will always be to clock speeding.
If 90% of Bud was drunk by people who were driving, then Bud might have a similar problem, regardless of any warnings on the bottle. But most drinkers are moderately responsible (as responsible as you can be while killing your liver with an intoxicating substance), so there is a large legitimate market for it.
In court, Snapchat will doubtless be called to prove a legitimate use for the speed filter. Due to the temporary nature of Snapchat messages, they're not going to be able to call on many stats to help them.
Can you point us to any proof that a trophy for speed exists?
Well I don't know about trophies, but I know the "speed filter" exists, and I can't see any purpose for that other than showing off risky behaviour.
Or that's my way of saying you need to step up your game.
Are you saying your shit's the shit and his shit's just shit? Way to shit on the man...
And yet probiotic yoghurt drinks appear to have a notable effect in reducing reflux after oral antibiotics. They've saved me on several occasions.
A shop-bought chicken is all good parts -- the only inedible thing they leave on is a bit of bone and cartilage, along with a few tendons and ligaments.
The seems like it would be ripe to develop prion diseases.
How so? If infected with any disease (virus, bacterium, prion or other), the batch would be tainted, but it would be relatively quick to identify and you could revert to an untainted batch to restart the culture.
A) Chicken quarters include bone.
B) Cheap meat often has added water, and the food tech industry has some very inventive ways of keeping the water in them.
C) Comparing fresh vs frozen ignores cost of logistics -- frozen food is cheaper because of its longer shelf-life and durability in transport, as well as the "no rush" element of delivery. There are plenty of frozen vegetables available.
I am not a vegetarian (I buy whole chickens and am learning to get more and more out of the carcase, with the aim of zero waste.)
You can't inherit from C -- it has no objects! (sorry)
Secondly, with the new digital audio interface standard
The question is will this be an extension of class compliant audio which basically everybody other than Microsoft is using, or are they going to try to obsolete a lot of hardware with a new standard?
Print has always behaved like a function, it should have been one all along.
As a side note, I really wish Python-speak didn't refer to procedures as functions....
Well I don't know about you, but I've never written a complete distributed fileserver that runs across thousands of VM instances and serves costumised webviews and APIs to thousands of clients worldwide. I've never written code that manages deduplication, which is quite a bugger to do because one slip and you could accidentally have people deleting each other's files. So I don't really know how many lines it would need in reality.
You have to be reasonably good at programming to use python effectively. Yes, you might be able to write a hello world program in 2 lines but its not a beginners language and neither are the concepts it uses
In what way? It's quite popular as a beginners' language and is used in quite a few schools. The main problem I see with it as a beginner language is that most curricula have a rather set idea of what is an "elementary" programming structure. Python's iteration over lists by member doesn't match with the assumption in many curricula that iteration is performed by index, for example. Or another example: the Scottish curriculum mentions arrays specifically, so you either have a choice of A) using Python non-Pythonically and fake it so that you always use a list like it was an array (and teach bad Python); B) use Python's lists and call them arrays (and teach bad general programming) or C) import an array class (and then have to faff around with methods rather than the Python built-ins, even if only having a constructor).
The other thing that seems to make Python difficult as a beginner language is... (wait for it)... (you knew someone was going to talk about it)... (come on, have you not guessed yet?)... semantic whitespace!. I haven't done a great deal of Python teaching yet (trainee teacher, I had one placement in a school using it), but the kids I saw using it really struggled with seeing code flow. Indents and dedents were seemingly at random. Trying to explain the concept of a "block" without some kind of clear visual enclosure is actually pretty hard.
Kids will learn directory structures at some point, but directories trees serve one purpose only: organise large amounts of data. If you don't have lots of stuff to organise, what's the point? When kids' literacy is at the point where they're using word processing, slideware etc for class work, they will have a use for directory structures, and they will learn it. You can teach that sort of thing in the abstract! Programming has incredible potential for school lessons because something actually happens, unlike sums on paper etc. I came through primary school when Logo was the "big thing" -- the teacher only understood the very basics, and quickly we were left to learn it from the book, but the whole scheme was designed to start us thinking about geometry as a concrete concept -- we were making polygons by turning fractions of 360 degrees, we noted that a regular hexagon of side length 10 was a lot bigger than a square with sides 10 units long (even if we didn't know what the actual area was). "Hello world" tasks and some of the basic games people do a lot of in Scratch don't teach that, so there's a lot of work to be done on making a curriculum that integrates computing into general learning, rather than treating it as a distinct and separate thread.