Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.
Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.
Another way the Chinese evade censorship is to use oblique terms and references, many of which are quite funny. The Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon is a compilation of them. (In Mandarin, "grass-mud horse" sounds very close to "fuck your mother" and is a way of evading and poking fun at censorship of vulgar content.)
I suppose the idea is that these self-driving cars won't need crumple zones. We'll see about that...
Indeed. In fact her statement "when it runs into something, it doesn't hurt that much" is oddly ignorant: your vehicle running into something is part of the issue, but something running into you is the other part. You do not want to be in a "tiny bubble" when a truck or SUV or bus hits you.
Please focus on the individual bad apples, instead of grouping them as "men".
I totally agree, but there's an important aspect that's unspoken. It's politically useful for the SJW (social justice warrior) types to group and stereotype men (at the same time they protest against stereotyping women and minorities). Their ideology depends on "group justice," a.k.a. "collective guilt," a fallacious concept because it destroys true (individual) justice. They want the state to do more than use true individual justice to solve individual problems as they arise. They want to remake society, and seek to do that by inventing concepts like "rape culture" and trying to elevate favored groups and denigrate unfavored groups, individual justice be damned.
Also, when was the last time that you saw a woman depicted in a video game that was less than a "C" cup? Sorry, but if you were to go back a few centuries and give a woman a sword and armor, I am pretty sure that the armor would cover more than about six square inches of her body. Sorry, but in video games, women are sex objects (Metroid is the one notable exception that I can think of). Even as protagonists, they will dress scantily, while standing next to a male character that is so covered in so much armor that you can only see his eyes.
Oh, please, not this "men depict women in unrealistic ways" trope again. It absolutely cuts both ways. Look at the covers of romance novels, every photo of a man in an ad in a women's magazine, the men in daytime soap operas, and pretty much in any other female-oriented media: do you see a lot of homely, short, overweight, and/or bald guys? No, you do not. Even the old guys are in shape and not bald. There is just as much "unrealistic," "sex object," under-representation of normal men in media aimed at women.
Not only that, but blaming (straight) men for women's body image issues is also bull. Straight men do not control women's fashion and the media that lives off of it.
Consider these three blog posts from three Mozilla figures, including Eich: [snip] Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox. Now that he's gone, and his technological authority with him, Mozilla immediately caved to Hollywood interests.
Apple and it's users said the same thing when they were getting their ass handed to them in the PC market. Microsoft is the low end crap. It's fragmented over tons of hardware. It has security issues. Apple has a vertical structure that will win in the end. It's hilarious for those of us who suffered through the Apple of the late 90's to read this regurgitation of talking points...
Dude, your comment reads like it's from the late '90s. Since then, Microsoft has been largely stagnant, their tablet and phone offerings largely a failure, the "inevitable" Windows monopoly doesn't look so inevitable any more, and OS X's share has grown. Macbooks are a very large percent of laptop sales, even to enterprise, and if you count tablets as computers, Apple's worldwide market share is about 19.5%, bigger than HP and Dell combined. Not to mention Apple getting the lion's share of profits.
So it looks like vertical structure is doing pretty well. As for mobile, sure, lots of Android phones are being sold, many (most?) to people who are entering the smartphone market. But more people are switching from Android to Apple than the other way around, so despite the drop in smartphone market share, Apple is quite well-positioned to continue growing.
The issue is if the regulator, instead of stopping abuse, let it slide for the promise of a future high paying job. In my book that is bribery, and I'm sure many people agrees with me.
That's part of it, but there's more. The topic is called regulatory capture. An inherent problem in all regulation is that those being regulated have a vested interest in "capturing" the regulators and influencing them for their own interests. It's often not as simple as bribery or a promise of a future job. It can be (and often is) things like convincing regulators that certain kinds of regulation are great ideas, regulations that 1) make the regulators think they are doing something, 2) can be easily implemented by that regulated entity, and (entirely coincidentally!) 3) hinder the competitors of the regulated entity. Whenever you read about bankers being in favor of Dodd-Frank, or health insurers being pro-Obamacare, or a large company that supports raising the minimum wage, look for something like #3. Such support does not usually come from the goodness of their hearts.
As pointed out in this thread, who knows the complexity of a set of regulations better than someone who used to be in charge of them? So too much separation between regulators and regulated would be dysfunctional: you don't want carpenters regulating doctors, or vice versa. But the whole field shows some of the inherent problems of all regulations, especially complex ones.
Why not just put the refineries in the Dakota's rather piping it to Texas to refine. Or is the oil for export and the Dakotas do not have a port to ship it to other countries?
Thanks to the EPA and the power of NIMBYs, it's basically impossible to build a new refinery in the US.
He wants to continue to fundraise from environmentalists by saying "We're being tough on the Keystone pipeline and insisting it meets our environmental standards!" and then do the same with the big business crowd by saying, "We haven't said no to Keystone, we just want to make sure it meets our environmental standards."
You forgot the blue-collar unions. They are very pro-Keystone, and he doesn't want to alienate them further, ahead of the 2014 mid-terms. So he's delaying screwing them until afterwards.
Plenty of food crops are grown in greenhouses. According to this, "The 2002 Census of Agriculture estimated a total $15 billion of greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture crops sold in 2002, including [...] $1.2 billion or eight percent food crops such as tomatoes grown in greenhouses."
"Some 1800 hectares of vegetables are grown in greenhouses" in Israel.
"In Europe and Israel, essentially all of these crops [peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons] are produced in greenhouses." Source.
Have you bothered to look? [...] there are a number of models which do very well, both in terms of hindcasting and forecasting for the specific area they were created to model. Quite a few of them are overly conservative, meaning that they under-projected the deviations due to climate change.
Not according to the last chart in the article I linked to. The vast majority have vastly overestimated future warming.
I don't know of any models which assumeonly positive feedbacks
I never said "only."
The science behind both positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system is still a bit nascent, at least in terms of determining where the "tipping points" are, but the physics behind the feedback processes is pretty well-established at this point.
So, then which is the accurate model that "predicts" past climate so well that I should trust its predictive ability?
In the meantime, I am going to go on the premise that it is largely correct and change my lifestyle to address it, and urge others to follow suit.
After all, if climate science turns out to be completely wrong, I won't have any remorse for creating a better world as a result.
Clearly, you are not into the whole cost/benefit analysis thing, or you'd wonder if spending money to "create a better world" was worth it if it meant spending hundreds or thousands of dollars so that the average temperature 50 years was now was.0000000000001 degree F. cooler. And I say that as someone who has recycled for nearly 40 years.
I've always been more pro-science than many, but I'm still not buying the alarming projections for several reasons.
1. AFAIK, a grand total of zero of the IPCC-favored climate models work in retrospect. I.e., one should be able to plug in data up to (say) 1990 and get an accurate "forecast" of the climate from 1990 to today. If they can't do that, why should I believe they will be accurate about the climate 50 years from now?
2. This article sums up my other objection. The TL;DR version: the IPCC-favored models are based on more than a simple (and rather inarguable) "more CO2 = hotter" greenhouse effect. They all assume various kinds of positive feedback to amplify that effect. Yet, the historical record seems to show the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system, not dominated by strong positive feedback effects.
Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. [...] They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.
So you're saying that food crops, when grown in conditions a few degrees warmer and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be less productive? I think operators of greenhouses would disagree with you.
I love it when reality flummoxes people by challenging their ideologies. Will the people who object to GMO foods also object if they are used to cure disease? Perhaps not on Slashdot, but I'll bet there will be a number of them elsewhere.
Oh, indeed. And the story of its origin is wonderful. In 1940 the British wanted North American Aviation to produce Curtiss P-40 Warhawks under license, but NAA thought they could make a better aircraft faster. And the first P-51 rolled out 102 days after the contract was signed, and first flew 47 days after that. It took a few years of upgrades and revsions to turn it into the best piston-engined fighter of the war, but compare that initial design and development cycle to the years and even decades it takes to get anything built these days.
Interesting tech note: the P-51's distinctive radiator/oil cooler actually added speed to the plane: cool air came in the front, and the hot air exiting the back added some jet-like thrust.
Slashdot Mirror
Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.
Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.
Because Republicans aren't logical. They hate the idea of people being able to work for themselves so they have destroyed the ride share business.
Earth to AC: The "California Regulators" mentioned in the first two words of the headline are not Republicans.
Another way the Chinese evade censorship is to use oblique terms and references, many of which are quite funny. The Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon is a compilation of them. (In Mandarin, "grass-mud horse" sounds very close to "fuck your mother" and is a way of evading and poking fun at censorship of vulgar content.)
the market is simply leaving Apple behind, who aren't even maintaining growth in a hyper-growth market.
Wrong. Tablet sales are down overall, not just Apple's (though a few minor brands are up a little).
I suppose the idea is that these self-driving cars won't need crumple zones. We'll see about that...
Indeed. In fact her statement "when it runs into something, it doesn't hurt that much" is oddly ignorant: your vehicle running into something is part of the issue, but something running into you is the other part. You do not want to be in a "tiny bubble" when a truck or SUV or bus hits you.
Please focus on the individual bad apples, instead of grouping them as "men".
I totally agree, but there's an important aspect that's unspoken. It's politically useful for the SJW (social justice warrior) types to group and stereotype men (at the same time they protest against stereotyping women and minorities). Their ideology depends on "group justice," a.k.a. "collective guilt," a fallacious concept because it destroys true (individual) justice. They want the state to do more than use true individual justice to solve individual problems as they arise. They want to remake society, and seek to do that by inventing concepts like "rape culture" and trying to elevate favored groups and denigrate unfavored groups, individual justice be damned.
Also, when was the last time that you saw a woman depicted in a video game that was less than a "C" cup? Sorry, but if you were to go back a few centuries and give a woman a sword and armor, I am pretty sure that the armor would cover more than about six square inches of her body. Sorry, but in video games, women are sex objects (Metroid is the one notable exception that I can think of). Even as protagonists, they will dress scantily, while standing next to a male character that is so covered in so much armor that you can only see his eyes.
Oh, please, not this "men depict women in unrealistic ways" trope again. It absolutely cuts both ways. Look at the covers of romance novels, every photo of a man in an ad in a women's magazine, the men in daytime soap operas, and pretty much in any other female-oriented media: do you see a lot of homely, short, overweight, and/or bald guys? No, you do not. Even the old guys are in shape and not bald. There is just as much "unrealistic," "sex object," under-representation of normal men in media aimed at women.
Not only that, but blaming (straight) men for women's body image issues is also bull. Straight men do not control women's fashion and the media that lives off of it.
Sarcasm meter busted, eh?
I wonder if anyone technically competent and influential has recently left the company...
You are not the first person to suspect that. From the link:
Consider these three blog posts from three Mozilla figures, including Eich: [snip] Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox. Now that he's gone, and his technological authority with him, Mozilla immediately caved to Hollywood interests.
It's not their /job/ to do that. It's their job to make a F/OSS browser. It's in their fucking "Mozilla Manifesto"
Really? Huh. Based on what happened to Brendan Eich, I thought their job was to promote same-sex marriage.
Apple and it's users said the same thing when they were getting their ass handed to them in the PC market. Microsoft is the low end crap. It's fragmented over tons of hardware. It has security issues. Apple has a vertical structure that will win in the end. It's hilarious for those of us who suffered through the Apple of the late 90's to read this regurgitation of talking points...
Dude, your comment reads like it's from the late '90s. Since then, Microsoft has been largely stagnant, their tablet and phone offerings largely a failure, the "inevitable" Windows monopoly doesn't look so inevitable any more, and OS X's share has grown. Macbooks are a very large percent of laptop sales, even to enterprise, and if you count tablets as computers, Apple's worldwide market share is about 19.5%, bigger than HP and Dell combined. Not to mention Apple getting the lion's share of profits.
So it looks like vertical structure is doing pretty well. As for mobile, sure, lots of Android phones are being sold, many (most?) to people who are entering the smartphone market. But more people are switching from Android to Apple than the other way around, so despite the drop in smartphone market share, Apple is quite well-positioned to continue growing.
True, that's not too bad, but an obligation to keep any records at all is still not really about "rights."
The issue is if the regulator, instead of stopping abuse, let it slide for the promise of a future high paying job. In my book that is bribery, and I'm sure many people agrees with me.
That's part of it, but there's more. The topic is called regulatory capture. An inherent problem in all regulation is that those being regulated have a vested interest in "capturing" the regulators and influencing them for their own interests. It's often not as simple as bribery or a promise of a future job. It can be (and often is) things like convincing regulators that certain kinds of regulation are great ideas, regulations that 1) make the regulators think they are doing something, 2) can be easily implemented by that regulated entity, and (entirely coincidentally!) 3) hinder the competitors of the regulated entity. Whenever you read about bankers being in favor of Dodd-Frank, or health insurers being pro-Obamacare, or a large company that supports raising the minimum wage, look for something like #3. Such support does not usually come from the goodness of their hearts.
As pointed out in this thread, who knows the complexity of a set of regulations better than someone who used to be in charge of them? So too much separation between regulators and regulated would be dysfunctional: you don't want carpenters regulating doctors, or vice versa. But the whole field shows some of the inherent problems of all regulations, especially complex ones.
Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?
Let's have animal rights activists pull the carriages.
Why not just put the refineries in the Dakota's rather piping it to Texas to refine. Or is the oil for export and the Dakotas do not have a port to ship it to other countries?
Thanks to the EPA and the power of NIMBYs, it's basically impossible to build a new refinery in the US.
He wants to continue to fundraise from environmentalists by saying "We're being tough on the Keystone pipeline and insisting it meets our environmental standards!" and then do the same with the big business crowd by saying, "We haven't said no to Keystone, we just want to make sure it meets our environmental standards."
You forgot the blue-collar unions. They are very pro-Keystone, and he doesn't want to alienate them further, ahead of the 2014 mid-terms. So he's delaying screwing them until afterwards.
Plenty of food crops are grown in greenhouses. According to this, "The 2002 Census of Agriculture estimated a total $15 billion of greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture crops sold in 2002, including [...] $1.2 billion or eight percent food crops such as tomatoes grown in greenhouses."
"Some 1800 hectares of vegetables are grown in greenhouses" in Israel.
"In Europe and Israel, essentially all of these crops [peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons] are produced in greenhouses." Source.
Have you bothered to look? [...] there are a number of models which do very well, both in terms of hindcasting and forecasting for the specific area they were created to model. Quite a few of them are overly conservative, meaning that they under-projected the deviations due to climate change.
Not according to the last chart in the article I linked to. The vast majority have vastly overestimated future warming.
I don't know of any models which assume only positive feedbacks
I never said "only."
The science behind both positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system is still a bit nascent, at least in terms of determining where the "tipping points" are, but the physics behind the feedback processes is pretty well-established at this point.
So, then which is the accurate model that "predicts" past climate so well that I should trust its predictive ability?
In the meantime, I am going to go on the premise that it is largely correct and change my lifestyle to address it, and urge others to follow suit.
After all, if climate science turns out to be completely wrong, I won't have any remorse for creating a better world as a result.
Clearly, you are not into the whole cost/benefit analysis thing, or you'd wonder if spending money to "create a better world" was worth it if it meant spending hundreds or thousands of dollars so that the average temperature 50 years was now was .0000000000001 degree F. cooler. And I say that as someone who has recycled for nearly 40 years.
A quick look at the charts on Google Images seems to indicate that particulate matter pollution is not rising along with CO2 levels.
I've always been more pro-science than many, but I'm still not buying the alarming projections for several reasons.
Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. [...] They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.
So you're saying that food crops, when grown in conditions a few degrees warmer and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be less productive? I think operators of greenhouses would disagree with you.
I love it when reality flummoxes people by challenging their ideologies. Will the people who object to GMO foods also object if they are used to cure disease? Perhaps not on Slashdot, but I'll bet there will be a number of them elsewhere.
"Here are your new tablets, kids. They're ruggedized so that they resist breaking!"
*CRACK!*
"Now, Tommy, why did you do that? Of course smashing it against the desk will break it!"
Superb aircraft.
Oh, indeed. And the story of its origin is wonderful. In 1940 the British wanted North American Aviation to produce Curtiss P-40 Warhawks under license, but NAA thought they could make a better aircraft faster. And the first P-51 rolled out 102 days after the contract was signed, and first flew 47 days after that. It took a few years of upgrades and revsions to turn it into the best piston-engined fighter of the war, but compare that initial design and development cycle to the years and even decades it takes to get anything built these days.
Interesting tech note: the P-51's distinctive radiator/oil cooler actually added speed to the plane: cool air came in the front, and the hot air exiting the back added some jet-like thrust.