I wholeheartedly support the protection of "Freaks" getting away with their "nastiness". When you have somebody causing actual harm, you can have at them.
First they came for the child rapists and I said nothing because everyone would think I was one, too.
This is how I feel sometimes. I still want to know why we see all these "dude had pictures of naked kids" newses and all these "illegal drug smugglers purchased $8000 of cocaine" articles, but none about "police crack human trafficking ring, arrest man for buying tons of kiddy porn and supplying human trafficking ring with over $85,000 of capital to support their child-abduction business over the years".
Somebody is harming children. The people we are arresting don't seem to actually be harming children. They don't seem to even be supporting the actual harm of children. We don't seem to be arresting people who are actually harming children. What is this?
What bothers me is "the harm done at the time of the image's creation" is perpetrated by some guy with his pants off. The retribution is applied to some other guy who wasn't there, wasn't involved, has never met the victim, has never met this guy, has never exchanged favors or money with this guy, but also has his pants off. As far as we can tell from the reports coming through the media, we've *never* caught the guy from the time of the image's creation; but *somebody's* got to get a beating for this, so it may as well be the guy who happened across the image on 4chan. How is that protecting anyone?
At a point I have to divide between "I'm a bit upset" and "something needs to be done about this." I don't like people smoking pot or being hookers, but what the fuck does the government have going about telling people what they can't do? You can have sex, you can exchange money, but you can't exchange money and have sex in conjunction fuck off.
Personally, if some dude had like 600 pics of me being buttfucked when I was 9, and he wasn't involved in the buttfucking or otherwise personally causing me any problems, I might be a little upset by this. But I don't think I should be able to seek retribution against some masturbating fat man by having the police put him in jail for 15 years to get assraped several thousand times and then eventually murdered in the throat.
I think, at a point, we must consider that the only so-called "victim" in the crime of viewing child pornography is the person in the pictures. We can make all kinds of arguments--the person may not care, or may find it exciting (yeah, this happens, I know people who talk about stuff they did as a small child with 40 year old men and wish they could be a kid again...)--but that's not really the issue. The issue centers squarely on the primary, accepted argument: the person in the pictures is a victim and is, essentially, not happy about these pictures existing. That's the only valid argument in the discussion, because all other arguments effectively posit that child pornography is not "wrong".
Given that viewpoint, I posit this: have you ever had the police called on you because you were standing outside talking to a friend and the guy who owns the house on the corner didn't like that you'd been standing on the corner in front of his house for 10 minutes? Demanding that the police arrest and jail somebody for 20 years for having dirty pictures of you from when you were 11 is kind of like that. The dude has pictures. Maybe that bothers you; but why should this be any different than some dude who has naked pictures of you drunk and sucking dick in college?
I guess my point here is I can see why this would be unsettling; but I also can't reconcile how the victim can demand such severe retribution unless they're a complete asshole and possibly more toxic to society than the dude beating off to pictures of them as a fifth grader learning to deepthroat.
On that matter, why so much emphasis over child porn? Is this a symptom of a failing society? Let's think about this for a minute.
I like to consider severity ranking from possession to support (purchase) to accomplice to perpetrator. Possessing the results of a crime or possessing something essentially criminal is less important--if you grow pot but never distribute it (i.e. only smoke it yourself), you're not contributing to the drug problem in this country (do consider that stolen property is different--by not returning it to its owner, you are perpetuating their loss). Supporting a crime is more important--buying drugs, buying child pornography, and so on, provides a tangible incentive. Acting as an accomplice is even more significant--trafficking legal materials for expressed illegal use, casing a bank for another person to rob, or acting as a cameraman for child pornography; even enabling (cheering on, talking a guy up into engaging in child sexual acts, and--especially--grooming the child) may range from support to accomplice. And of course perpetrating is severe--selling drugs, stealing a car, actually engaging in sexual acts with a child.
Given this scaling, you have to admit that the huge amount of publicity around arresting people for possession with no mention of any kind of support or perpetration raises issues. It's like a witch hunt: we've got a system where people can find child pornography easily, some even trade it around, and yet we can't find anyone who's paying for this stuff or who's actually making it. We've found some cases of child rape, but none of child statutory rape--I don't consider "statutory rape" real rape be
The way OIG explains it is every time that somebody looks at a picture of child pornography, the person in question is a victim of a crime again. That's why OIG doesn't allow agents to look at images; they use an automated scanner to compare hash values against a known database which doesn't store actual images, and never open them to verify because viewing would injure the person. Any computer which has contained child porn at any time is destroyed; no files may be rescued from it in any case.
That's not the issue. The government has a job to do, but they have certain responsibilities. The police are allowed to lie, cheat, threaten, frighten, and do all kinds of things to bend a confession out of someone; these confessions are then admissible in court. Police are not well-trained interrogators; a well-trained interrogator could get anyone to confess to anything in short order. Still, locking an innocent young woman in a room with a big scary angry police man is going to get some level of cooperation...
Do we want this? Do we want thug-cops that beat confessions out of people, psychologically or physically? Do we want courts that say, "Well, we know you're guilty, so give us all the evidence against yourself and fuck constitutional law!"? Do we want wide-spread surveillance because you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? How about inventing charges using collected circumstantial evidence to get rid of people who are not criminals, but are undesirable in society and not really liked by anyone anyway?
The real issue is this: The government is power. People in the government have power. That makes them your adversary. You want it to be hard for them to exercise power over you and anyone else; if you're a criminal, well damn, but in support of *my* interests I hope it's very hard for them to nail *you* even though I think you should be locked up. If you murder someone, I hope they just *barely* manage to get a conviction after a huge fucking ass-dance and tons of sunken public money and massive investigations turning up some damn solid evidence before they execute you, just so the next guy whose house burned down from a fire started in a garage near a can of kerosene isn't executed because "it looks like he murdered his family, due to the use of an accelerant to start the fire some time shortly after he left his home". You fucking prove it.
Actually the article basically says, "The BSA says non-pirated software is better, and Open Source Software isn't pirated, and it costs even less, so Open Source Software is a hell of a lot better!"
KGS 7 kyu, I played for about 6 months starting 2 years ago. Just picked it up again and the ranking system must have shifted; I've broke 6 kyu once or twice and have been back on my feet (actually I can consistently play high 6kyu when I'm on noopept + ani + pi).
I just play, I don't review or study anymore. Too lazy to take the time.
How much effort does it take to type? I use Dvorak so I type insanely fast--so fast it's been commented that I'm an insanely fast typist on IRC, where people can only see line-by-line speed and not actual keystroke speed.
Actually I own a house and I'll be out of debt in 3 years and I'm working on a blue collar salary. Out of debt by 30, with a house in a big city.
I'm still single. I've turned down relationships; I don't pair bond, so any form of relationship would be a terrible annoyance and completely imbalanced. Time sink, effort sink, emotion sink, with little return. I stopped having friends when I started avoiding them because they always wanted to go places and do stuff and it was interrupting anything else I wanted to do.
Some dudes are paying $200/week for hookers here, that's somehow common even though everyone's poor as shit (well, the drug dealers aren't). Actually I question if everyone here's really 'poor'--people tell me I can't have savings on my salary, but I think I'm just better with money; and the "poor people" living around me are spending $1200/mo on rent while I spend $500/mo on a mortgage (okay, I pad it up to $1000+). I'm not interested in blowing my money on hookers; I've had regular non-whores try to tempt me by flirting up to and including implied or explicit sexual offers and that doesn't work on me either. Sex is peripheral: it'd be nice, but I'm not going to make too much of an exchange to get it, certainly not monetary and definitely nothing one-sided.
I think that might be the basis. If you can't be pressured into something by the offer of sex, you can't be dragged into a relationship. I can't, so I don't see any benefit to a relationship--I could jump through hoops and spend a lot of time and effort and money trying to keep some girl happy so I can have sex, or I could spend 10 minutes masturbating.
The problem with IQ is most people don't understand what intelligence is.
I've been able to measure a base IQ of around 130-135 on standardized IQ tests since I was 8. The tests were made for people over age 13 and the more likely deviation would be that my IQ is significantly higher than that. This is pretty dead-on: I'm actually extremely, ridiculously intelligent. I can break Mensa tests above 150.
Taking this to a practical level, I rely very little on emotion and have very little cultural and social understanding (social understanding is measured in something called EQ). So, you'd think what? High IQ and no social ability... so, Stephen Hawking? Some genius locked in his room with nerd equipment, solving the problems of the universe. Sounds legit, right? Not quite.
Most of the serious geniuses you'll meet have not just a high IQ, but also strong abstract reasoning: they turn ideas and goals into well-defined processes. They associate tools and information with problems, needs, and desires. More than that, they actually have a huge basis of domain knowledge--often in multiple domains--to work from.
By contrast, I don't. My abstract reasoning is terrible and I'm fairly lazy. I latch onto information readily, but only as far as requires little effort and provides amusement. I can rattle off about a lot of stuff and generally I'm never wrong--because I talk about things I understand. People *think* I'm a genius because I understand just about any-fucking-thing you stick in front of me; yet functionally I operate like any person of normal intelligence, just with basic ability with a wider range of things.
That's basically how intelligence works. Let's say you go to McDonalds and give the burned-out cashier a little pill that boosts their IQ to 135. What'll happen? Pretty much, he'll stand around feeling like something is 'off,' suddenly recognizing that there's a problem somewhere with the level of stupidity around him; but it won't be a massive, visible change, and it'll pass quickly. Without a huge basis of knowledge and experience, the important associations that highly intelligent people make simply don't happen. Suddenly being intelligent and not bothering to develop a huge basis of knowledge and experience doesn't make you a genius, and overall does nothing.
That's not to say that your average 135-IQ semi-genius won't absolutely squash some 100-IQ norm if they both dive head-long into a mathematics and engineering program, of course. The guy with a 135 is going to cream you, he's going to sail through his classes easily and you're going to struggle and he'll put in less time and less effort and get better grades. But if he's going to just party all night and hook up with cheerleaders? Being a genius and neglecting your studies will get you passed by the slow kids, and in the end you'll babble some stupid shit just like your average redneck who didn't have the sheer brainpower to understand college.
That's been my experience. I'll absorb information like a sponge, and I'll comprehend it immediately; I can take it as far as I care with some effort. Once I got out of high school, I realized that the effort needed in high school was "be present in class, not necessarily awake"; the effort required for higher education and understanding and for building high-level academic skills is... quite a bit higher than I'd care to put in. So all these damn supergeniuses are way off my level, and I'm stuck in the back of the short bus.
And that's why people don't believe in "Intelligence" and "IQ". They don't understand how it works. It's like your brain comes from Ikea--it might be the upper end model, but you still need to assemble it yourself and you might have pieces left over. I still have a bookshelf in pieces in my living room from 2 years ago.
I've been ranking up in Go recently since I'm taking racetams and noopept. Inter-hemisphere communication is nice. There's all these people on racetams thinking
Stakeholder management needed. Bring in the users, the people who are managing the users, etc, and ask them.
Quality is defined as the degree to which a deliverable meets requirements. If the feature, as-is, meets requirements better than the feature not-as-is, then this is the best situation. Imagine if rm didn't offer a -f option. I have this source code directory, a git clone I no longer need... rm -rf and... yes... yes... yes... yes | rm -r and I get "screw you for piping stuff at me!" Shell scripts suddenly suck because rm operates in -i by default, even in shell scripts. This is not a quality rm implementation because it fails a ton of usability requirements; but it'll stop me from shooting myself in the face, right?
This doesn't work because most people won't murder-rape you and kidnap your child to turn them into a 9 year old sex slave; but just about anyone you're going to send titty-pics to is going to keep your titty-pics if they find any way at all to make it happen.
I was going to call stupidity on this, but then I realized they meant the axial poles. The magnetic poles have been shifting (they travel a lot, and sometimes reverse; there's been dramatic movement in the recent decade), and this can alter magma flows and screw with global weather patterns. Axial poles shift due to mass movement, which may occur from magnetic poles moving hot metal around, but also other reasons as cited.
People are obsessed with CO2, they don't want the evidence in front of their eyes.
Let's assume--I'm not placing this as fact, just an assumption--but let's assume that global temperatures are rising. People are standing around denying this because the oceans sink CO2 and algae consumes it. CO2 has been this high or higher in the past, but there's all kinds of jockeying to mess with the graphs--stuff like throwing out high-quality ice core data for low-quality tree ring data and correlating growth with available material (carbon), which is much less accurate (sunlight, water, temperature, etc, all affect tree growth; and they only grow in the summer!). With the facts staring them in the face, they continue to bicker because the cause is, apparently, imaginary and political.
Now within our assumption that global warming is real, we've established that people are talking about CO2 = Global Warming. No CO2, no global warming, no matter what your thermometer says. Problem?
The city I'm in is extremely hot today. I wonder why. There's 600 degree exhaust air being pumped out of an oil fire near me.. with 50F weather outside, being 12 feet away from an ambulance is like sitting in front of a roaring furnace. There's hundreds of cars on the road pumping out heat. We've painted the roads black, we've cut down trees that bind sunlight (heat) into stored energy, we've started to collect solar energy and bleed it as heat, we've been burning a ton of wood and coal and oil and belching hot gas into the atmosphere.
The world is covered in one giant fucking heating network. Cooling systems move heat, rather than storing it out of the environment. Could that be it?
The earth's magnetic poles are shifting around, magma flows are changing. We have accepted scientifically that this happens and this causes drastic climate changes; yet as weather patterns shift, we blame the global temperature and claim it rearranges things. Crazy, right?
Stupid CO2 fetishists. The reason people don't believe we've ever had CO2 this high is because they don't want to. It used to be common theory, until someone decided it wasn't good for politics. Remember: We need something we can cite as a cause for a problem so we can look like we're fixing the problem.
I'd wager the situation wouldn't improve much if we switched to 100% solar energy. Air quality would be better.
481 PPM. I've seen as low as around 364ppm, and I've seen claims of 1200-2000ppm around 1200AD; but I'm pretty sure 1000+ in modern age (i.e. not dinosaur age) is ludicrous.
The problem is you have to plant plants outside, and they can't move, and they're exposed to wind for pollination purposes. Pollination is effective: it allows genetic material to spread quite widely without actually going out and fucking something. Those haploid cells can go pretty far.
Slashdot Mirror
I wholeheartedly support the protection of "Freaks" getting away with their "nastiness". When you have somebody causing actual harm, you can have at them.
First they came for the child rapists and I said nothing because everyone would think I was one, too.
This is how I feel sometimes. I still want to know why we see all these "dude had pictures of naked kids" newses and all these "illegal drug smugglers purchased $8000 of cocaine" articles, but none about "police crack human trafficking ring, arrest man for buying tons of kiddy porn and supplying human trafficking ring with over $85,000 of capital to support their child-abduction business over the years".
Somebody is harming children. The people we are arresting don't seem to actually be harming children. They don't seem to even be supporting the actual harm of children. We don't seem to be arresting people who are actually harming children. What is this?
What bothers me is "the harm done at the time of the image's creation" is perpetrated by some guy with his pants off. The retribution is applied to some other guy who wasn't there, wasn't involved, has never met the victim, has never met this guy, has never exchanged favors or money with this guy, but also has his pants off. As far as we can tell from the reports coming through the media, we've *never* caught the guy from the time of the image's creation; but *somebody's* got to get a beating for this, so it may as well be the guy who happened across the image on 4chan. How is that protecting anyone?
At a point I have to divide between "I'm a bit upset" and "something needs to be done about this." I don't like people smoking pot or being hookers, but what the fuck does the government have going about telling people what they can't do? You can have sex, you can exchange money, but you can't exchange money and have sex in conjunction fuck off.
Personally, if some dude had like 600 pics of me being buttfucked when I was 9, and he wasn't involved in the buttfucking or otherwise personally causing me any problems, I might be a little upset by this. But I don't think I should be able to seek retribution against some masturbating fat man by having the police put him in jail for 15 years to get assraped several thousand times and then eventually murdered in the throat.
I think, at a point, we must consider that the only so-called "victim" in the crime of viewing child pornography is the person in the pictures. We can make all kinds of arguments--the person may not care, or may find it exciting (yeah, this happens, I know people who talk about stuff they did as a small child with 40 year old men and wish they could be a kid again...)--but that's not really the issue. The issue centers squarely on the primary, accepted argument: the person in the pictures is a victim and is, essentially, not happy about these pictures existing. That's the only valid argument in the discussion, because all other arguments effectively posit that child pornography is not "wrong".
Given that viewpoint, I posit this: have you ever had the police called on you because you were standing outside talking to a friend and the guy who owns the house on the corner didn't like that you'd been standing on the corner in front of his house for 10 minutes? Demanding that the police arrest and jail somebody for 20 years for having dirty pictures of you from when you were 11 is kind of like that. The dude has pictures. Maybe that bothers you; but why should this be any different than some dude who has naked pictures of you drunk and sucking dick in college?
I guess my point here is I can see why this would be unsettling; but I also can't reconcile how the victim can demand such severe retribution unless they're a complete asshole and possibly more toxic to society than the dude beating off to pictures of them as a fifth grader learning to deepthroat.
On that matter, why so much emphasis over child porn? Is this a symptom of a failing society? Let's think about this for a minute.
I like to consider severity ranking from possession to support (purchase) to accomplice to perpetrator. Possessing the results of a crime or possessing something essentially criminal is less important--if you grow pot but never distribute it (i.e. only smoke it yourself), you're not contributing to the drug problem in this country (do consider that stolen property is different--by not returning it to its owner, you are perpetuating their loss). Supporting a crime is more important--buying drugs, buying child pornography, and so on, provides a tangible incentive. Acting as an accomplice is even more significant--trafficking legal materials for expressed illegal use, casing a bank for another person to rob, or acting as a cameraman for child pornography; even enabling (cheering on, talking a guy up into engaging in child sexual acts, and--especially--grooming the child) may range from support to accomplice. And of course perpetrating is severe--selling drugs, stealing a car, actually engaging in sexual acts with a child.
Given this scaling, you have to admit that the huge amount of publicity around arresting people for possession with no mention of any kind of support or perpetration raises issues. It's like a witch hunt: we've got a system where people can find child pornography easily, some even trade it around, and yet we can't find anyone who's paying for this stuff or who's actually making it. We've found some cases of child rape, but none of child statutory rape--I don't consider "statutory rape" real rape be
The way OIG explains it is every time that somebody looks at a picture of child pornography, the person in question is a victim of a crime again. That's why OIG doesn't allow agents to look at images; they use an automated scanner to compare hash values against a known database which doesn't store actual images, and never open them to verify because viewing would injure the person. Any computer which has contained child porn at any time is destroyed; no files may be rescued from it in any case.
You sound just like a Cardassian.
That's not the issue. The government has a job to do, but they have certain responsibilities. The police are allowed to lie, cheat, threaten, frighten, and do all kinds of things to bend a confession out of someone; these confessions are then admissible in court. Police are not well-trained interrogators; a well-trained interrogator could get anyone to confess to anything in short order. Still, locking an innocent young woman in a room with a big scary angry police man is going to get some level of cooperation...
Do we want this? Do we want thug-cops that beat confessions out of people, psychologically or physically? Do we want courts that say, "Well, we know you're guilty, so give us all the evidence against yourself and fuck constitutional law!"? Do we want wide-spread surveillance because you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? How about inventing charges using collected circumstantial evidence to get rid of people who are not criminals, but are undesirable in society and not really liked by anyone anyway?
The real issue is this: The government is power. People in the government have power. That makes them your adversary. You want it to be hard for them to exercise power over you and anyone else; if you're a criminal, well damn, but in support of *my* interests I hope it's very hard for them to nail *you* even though I think you should be locked up. If you murder someone, I hope they just *barely* manage to get a conviction after a huge fucking ass-dance and tons of sunken public money and massive investigations turning up some damn solid evidence before they execute you, just so the next guy whose house burned down from a fire started in a garage near a can of kerosene isn't executed because "it looks like he murdered his family, due to the use of an accelerant to start the fire some time shortly after he left his home". You fucking prove it.
Actually the article basically says, "The BSA says non-pirated software is better, and Open Source Software isn't pirated, and it costs even less, so Open Source Software is a hell of a lot better!"
KGS 7 kyu, I played for about 6 months starting 2 years ago. Just picked it up again and the ranking system must have shifted; I've broke 6 kyu once or twice and have been back on my feet (actually I can consistently play high 6kyu when I'm on noopept + ani + pi).
I just play, I don't review or study anymore. Too lazy to take the time.
How much effort does it take to type? I use Dvorak so I type insanely fast--so fast it's been commented that I'm an insanely fast typist on IRC, where people can only see line-by-line speed and not actual keystroke speed.
How could I come off like a bigot? Are you interpreting any reference to McDonalds is a reference to negroes?
Oh I am. They call me Zoran, Supreme Interdimensional Lord of the Friend Zone.
Actually I own a house and I'll be out of debt in 3 years and I'm working on a blue collar salary. Out of debt by 30, with a house in a big city.
I'm still single. I've turned down relationships; I don't pair bond, so any form of relationship would be a terrible annoyance and completely imbalanced. Time sink, effort sink, emotion sink, with little return. I stopped having friends when I started avoiding them because they always wanted to go places and do stuff and it was interrupting anything else I wanted to do.
Some dudes are paying $200/week for hookers here, that's somehow common even though everyone's poor as shit (well, the drug dealers aren't). Actually I question if everyone here's really 'poor'--people tell me I can't have savings on my salary, but I think I'm just better with money; and the "poor people" living around me are spending $1200/mo on rent while I spend $500/mo on a mortgage (okay, I pad it up to $1000+). I'm not interested in blowing my money on hookers; I've had regular non-whores try to tempt me by flirting up to and including implied or explicit sexual offers and that doesn't work on me either. Sex is peripheral: it'd be nice, but I'm not going to make too much of an exchange to get it, certainly not monetary and definitely nothing one-sided.
I think that might be the basis. If you can't be pressured into something by the offer of sex, you can't be dragged into a relationship. I can't, so I don't see any benefit to a relationship--I could jump through hoops and spend a lot of time and effort and money trying to keep some girl happy so I can have sex, or I could spend 10 minutes masturbating.
It's called "economic rent seeking" and it's a way to transfer wealth, weakening the economy and leaving society more poor.
The problem with IQ is most people don't understand what intelligence is.
I've been able to measure a base IQ of around 130-135 on standardized IQ tests since I was 8. The tests were made for people over age 13 and the more likely deviation would be that my IQ is significantly higher than that. This is pretty dead-on: I'm actually extremely, ridiculously intelligent. I can break Mensa tests above 150.
Taking this to a practical level, I rely very little on emotion and have very little cultural and social understanding (social understanding is measured in something called EQ). So, you'd think what? High IQ and no social ability... so, Stephen Hawking? Some genius locked in his room with nerd equipment, solving the problems of the universe. Sounds legit, right? Not quite.
Most of the serious geniuses you'll meet have not just a high IQ, but also strong abstract reasoning: they turn ideas and goals into well-defined processes. They associate tools and information with problems, needs, and desires. More than that, they actually have a huge basis of domain knowledge--often in multiple domains--to work from.
By contrast, I don't. My abstract reasoning is terrible and I'm fairly lazy. I latch onto information readily, but only as far as requires little effort and provides amusement. I can rattle off about a lot of stuff and generally I'm never wrong--because I talk about things I understand. People *think* I'm a genius because I understand just about any-fucking-thing you stick in front of me; yet functionally I operate like any person of normal intelligence, just with basic ability with a wider range of things.
That's basically how intelligence works. Let's say you go to McDonalds and give the burned-out cashier a little pill that boosts their IQ to 135. What'll happen? Pretty much, he'll stand around feeling like something is 'off,' suddenly recognizing that there's a problem somewhere with the level of stupidity around him; but it won't be a massive, visible change, and it'll pass quickly. Without a huge basis of knowledge and experience, the important associations that highly intelligent people make simply don't happen. Suddenly being intelligent and not bothering to develop a huge basis of knowledge and experience doesn't make you a genius, and overall does nothing.
That's not to say that your average 135-IQ semi-genius won't absolutely squash some 100-IQ norm if they both dive head-long into a mathematics and engineering program, of course. The guy with a 135 is going to cream you, he's going to sail through his classes easily and you're going to struggle and he'll put in less time and less effort and get better grades. But if he's going to just party all night and hook up with cheerleaders? Being a genius and neglecting your studies will get you passed by the slow kids, and in the end you'll babble some stupid shit just like your average redneck who didn't have the sheer brainpower to understand college.
That's been my experience. I'll absorb information like a sponge, and I'll comprehend it immediately; I can take it as far as I care with some effort. Once I got out of high school, I realized that the effort needed in high school was "be present in class, not necessarily awake"; the effort required for higher education and understanding and for building high-level academic skills is ... quite a bit higher than I'd care to put in. So all these damn supergeniuses are way off my level, and I'm stuck in the back of the short bus.
And that's why people don't believe in "Intelligence" and "IQ". They don't understand how it works. It's like your brain comes from Ikea--it might be the upper end model, but you still need to assemble it yourself and you might have pieces left over. I still have a bookshelf in pieces in my living room from 2 years ago.
I've been ranking up in Go recently since I'm taking racetams and noopept. Inter-hemisphere communication is nice. There's all these people on racetams thinking
No, it's not. Existing rm implementations have a -f flag. What if -f was removed because people are stupid and rm -rf / a lot?
Stakeholder management needed. Bring in the users, the people who are managing the users, etc, and ask them.
Quality is defined as the degree to which a deliverable meets requirements. If the feature, as-is, meets requirements better than the feature not-as-is, then this is the best situation. Imagine if rm didn't offer a -f option. I have this source code directory, a git clone I no longer need... rm -rf and ... yes ... yes... yes... yes | rm -r and I get "screw you for piping stuff at me!" Shell scripts suddenly suck because rm operates in -i by default, even in shell scripts. This is not a quality rm implementation because it fails a ton of usability requirements; but it'll stop me from shooting myself in the face, right?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-content-pretty-fucking-awesome,32479/
This doesn't work because most people won't murder-rape you and kidnap your child to turn them into a 9 year old sex slave; but just about anyone you're going to send titty-pics to is going to keep your titty-pics if they find any way at all to make it happen.
What closed it in the first place? It was open 500 years ago...
I was going to call stupidity on this, but then I realized they meant the axial poles. The magnetic poles have been shifting (they travel a lot, and sometimes reverse; there's been dramatic movement in the recent decade), and this can alter magma flows and screw with global weather patterns. Axial poles shift due to mass movement, which may occur from magnetic poles moving hot metal around, but also other reasons as cited.
People are obsessed with CO2, they don't want the evidence in front of their eyes.
Let's assume--I'm not placing this as fact, just an assumption--but let's assume that global temperatures are rising. People are standing around denying this because the oceans sink CO2 and algae consumes it. CO2 has been this high or higher in the past, but there's all kinds of jockeying to mess with the graphs--stuff like throwing out high-quality ice core data for low-quality tree ring data and correlating growth with available material (carbon), which is much less accurate (sunlight, water, temperature, etc, all affect tree growth; and they only grow in the summer!). With the facts staring them in the face, they continue to bicker because the cause is, apparently, imaginary and political.
Now within our assumption that global warming is real, we've established that people are talking about CO2 = Global Warming. No CO2, no global warming, no matter what your thermometer says. Problem?
The city I'm in is extremely hot today. I wonder why. There's 600 degree exhaust air being pumped out of an oil fire near me.. with 50F weather outside, being 12 feet away from an ambulance is like sitting in front of a roaring furnace. There's hundreds of cars on the road pumping out heat. We've painted the roads black, we've cut down trees that bind sunlight (heat) into stored energy, we've started to collect solar energy and bleed it as heat, we've been burning a ton of wood and coal and oil and belching hot gas into the atmosphere.
The world is covered in one giant fucking heating network. Cooling systems move heat, rather than storing it out of the environment. Could that be it?
The earth's magnetic poles are shifting around, magma flows are changing. We have accepted scientifically that this happens and this causes drastic climate changes; yet as weather patterns shift, we blame the global temperature and claim it rearranges things. Crazy, right?
Stupid CO2 fetishists. The reason people don't believe we've ever had CO2 this high is because they don't want to. It used to be common theory, until someone decided it wasn't good for politics. Remember: We need something we can cite as a cause for a problem so we can look like we're fixing the problem.
I'd wager the situation wouldn't improve much if we switched to 100% solar energy. Air quality would be better.
481 PPM. I've seen as low as around 364ppm, and I've seen claims of 1200-2000ppm around 1200AD; but I'm pretty sure 1000+ in modern age (i.e. not dinosaur age) is ludicrous.
The problem is you have to plant plants outside, and they can't move, and they're exposed to wind for pollination purposes. Pollination is effective: it allows genetic material to spread quite widely without actually going out and fucking something. Those haploid cells can go pretty far.
What about women's rea?