The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must
How would you know? A government official could privately encourage/threaten Reddit, and they can even send them a NSL.
In any case, government involvement has nothing to do with free speech -- it's all about consequences. Free speech is when you are free to speak. If the government says it's illegal but doesn't enforce it ever, then you still have free speech. If the government says it's legal but it is enforced by non-government agents (eg getting people fired from their job) then you don't have free speech.
it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.
Localized censorship is still censorship. Eg you might think you're being censored if you live in North Korea, but since you can always move to a different website/country then you're not being censored -- except there's a limit to how much trouble people will go through to express their views. And government laws vs social norms aren't a big difference -- for example, consider the difference in laws against copyright infringement vs social norms against picking your nose in public.
I thought it was slightly positive-sum (though negligibly so when it comes to high frequency trading). Although that might only be true for the big players nowadays.
Remember, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Any consequences of speech are a limitation on freedom of speech, informal limitations if the government is not involved and formal limitations if the government is involved.. You might as well say that you're free to murder, but not free from the consequences of murder. If the government will punish you for doing something, most people don't consider people free to do that.
Well, in that case I'll be sure not to ever mention any company by name, any type of company in general, or anything else that might affect the stock market. Though I suppose I'm safe because no one pays any attention to me anyhow.
If you can react quickly enough to buy before the stock price finishes going up, then even if it is a fake trend you'll still make money so long as you can sell it before it drops below the price you bought it at. Of course, any money you make is at the cost of someone who was less agile/informed/lucky than you. That's zero sum games for you (technically not exactly zero sum, but it's not like the true value of a company actually changes much in a day).
IMO There is NEVER a valid reason for ANY entity to hold onto an unpatched vulnerability and exploit it, not even the arguments of "National Security" and "we need this to stop terrorists" that have been used by the NSA and other agencies to justify this practice.
Similarly, there is NEVER a valid reason for ANY entity to hold onto research findings nor trade secrets nor military secrets. And if someone happens to know your password, your security system's code, or has a copy or picture of your house key, well that's just security by obscurity and they should publish and force you to get real about security.
Robots eliminate crappy, boring, mind-numbingly repetitive tasks that a human shouldn't have been forced nor encouraged to do. Sometimes those jobs are replaced with a dual job of babysitting the robots while doing some other boring task that hasn't been roboticized yet. Also, there's always the design and repair of robots.
Overall, increasing efficiency (often called "eliminating jobs") is a good thing, but can both displace workers and further concentrate profits.
Is there a way to debug voters who keep re-electing the same politician over and over? (And in the case of term limits, they keep electing relatives of the previous politician).
When there's no known mechanism, you are likely dealing with a correlation rather than causation. Perhaps people at risk of getting brain cancer are also more likely to use a cell phone? (This would also explain the sibling post's lack of increase in brain cancer).
Sorry, all the corporations will ask for with regards to encryption is an exemption for themselves, plus an incredibly onerous process for any new competitors to go through if they want to get an exemption. The corporations will not protect you.
Don't forget that the TSA is likelier to kill you than are terrorists (because terrorist's aren't constantly pointing carcinogenic x-rays at every single passenger).
Note: screening is not especially harmful, what is harmful is panicking and receiving nasty nasty treatment that was entirely unnecessary. Also be warned that many doctors are innumerate (and other doctors are afraid you'll sue them). If you screen for cancer more often or outside the recommended age ranges, be damn sure you calculate the odds it's a false positive and that you understand both the risks of receiving unnecessary treatment and the risks of postponing treatment. If you can't do this, you should simply avoid screening more often than recommended or outside the recommended age ranges.
Screening older women for breast cancer does more harm than good and leads to over-treatment, warn researchers.
They said regular testing of those aged 69 to 74 did not reduce the numbers getting the disease in the life-threatening advanced stages.
Even doctors find the benefits of screening hard to analyse correctly. Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has investigated this, using figures for a screening test for bowel cancer as an example. If the prevalence of cancer is 0.3%, the sensitivity of the test was 50% and the false positive rate was 3%, the doctors were asked, what is the probability that someone who tests positive actually has colorectal cancer?
Half the doctors gave the answer as 50%, when the result is actually less than 5%.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA screening in healthy men finding that the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.[14]
Naked mole rats seem to have the right idea when it comes to cancer (or the various diverse forms of cancers if you prefer). They have an extra genetic component against cells reproducing when they're too tightly packed, as would happen in cancer.
The obvious way for car companies to monetize driver data, is to very emphatically state "We do not collect nor sell your driver data." Because really, what percentage of a car's sale's price do they think they're going to get by selling data, and how would that compare to lost sales/reduced car value?
You could start by looking at squatter's rights laws. If you live in a place for several years without permission of the owner, the place might become yours. (At least that's how things used to be)
And what about the not-so-innocent things people do?
Then the political correctness group will take issue with the *wording* rather than what was said. There is no limit to the nasty things one can say while using only polite, politically correct words and phrases.
Hypocrisy is the only sin for a moral relativist -- failing one's own moral code, a universal sin that can always be pointed out by anyone to anyone. However, it is incredibly dangerous to demonize hypocrites -- because they can become non-hypocrites by embracing the bad thing, and that is worse yet seems to be overlooked. So someone who smokes and admits it's bad and you shouldn't do it, is a hypocrite. But someone who says you ought to smoke too is worse. These days, it seems to take more courage to be a hypocrite and speak out against something even though you have a personal failing, rather than safely promoting that thing because you truly believe in it.
Also, hypocrisy is different from flip-flopping, different from changing one's mind as new facts become known, and different from compromising as necessary to actually achieve one's goals as opposed to merely making a show of unyielding yet worthless support.
Slashdot Mirror
The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must
How would you know? A government official could privately encourage/threaten Reddit, and they can even send them a NSL.
In any case, government involvement has nothing to do with free speech -- it's all about consequences. Free speech is when you are free to speak. If the government says it's illegal but doesn't enforce it ever, then you still have free speech. If the government says it's legal but it is enforced by non-government agents (eg getting people fired from their job) then you don't have free speech.
"Data Science"? Why the fuck isn't it just called "Statistics", like it has been for centuries?
Because statistics show that you can get more money by calling it data science.
it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets censorship as the act or practice of controlling or suppressing the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds
Localized censorship is still censorship. Eg you might think you're being censored if you live in North Korea, but since you can always move to a different website/country then you're not being censored -- except there's a limit to how much trouble people will go through to express their views. And government laws vs social norms aren't a big difference -- for example, consider the difference in laws against copyright infringement vs social norms against picking your nose in public.
I thought it was slightly positive-sum (though negligibly so when it comes to high frequency trading). Although that might only be true for the big players nowadays.
Remember, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Any consequences of speech are a limitation on freedom of speech, informal limitations if the government is not involved and formal limitations if the government is involved.. You might as well say that you're free to murder, but not free from the consequences of murder. If the government will punish you for doing something, most people don't consider people free to do that.
Well, in that case I'll be sure not to ever mention any company by name, any type of company in general, or anything else that might affect the stock market. Though I suppose I'm safe because no one pays any attention to me anyhow.
If you can react quickly enough to buy before the stock price finishes going up, then even if it is a fake trend you'll still make money so long as you can sell it before it drops below the price you bought it at. Of course, any money you make is at the cost of someone who was less agile/informed/lucky than you. That's zero sum games for you (technically not exactly zero sum, but it's not like the true value of a company actually changes much in a day).
Just wondering, is that a limitation on free speech in general, or does it only apply to people who tried to profit off it?
IMO There is NEVER a valid reason for ANY entity to hold onto an unpatched vulnerability and exploit it, not even the arguments of "National Security" and "we need this to stop terrorists" that have been used by the NSA and other agencies to justify this practice.
Similarly, there is NEVER a valid reason for ANY entity to hold onto research findings nor trade secrets nor military secrets. And if someone happens to know your password, your security system's code, or has a copy or picture of your house key, well that's just security by obscurity and they should publish and force you to get real about security.
Robots eliminate crappy, boring, mind-numbingly repetitive tasks that a human shouldn't have been forced nor encouraged to do. Sometimes those jobs are replaced with a dual job of babysitting the robots while doing some other boring task that hasn't been roboticized yet. Also, there's always the design and repair of robots.
Overall, increasing efficiency (often called "eliminating jobs") is a good thing, but can both displace workers and further concentrate profits.
Is there a way to debug voters who keep re-electing the same politician over and over? (And in the case of term limits, they keep electing relatives of the previous politician).
People like you make our government officials want to gag.
Sorry I accidentally pointed the spotlight at all those pests who were asking me to help them hide.
When there's no known mechanism, you are likely dealing with a correlation rather than causation. Perhaps people at risk of getting brain cancer are also more likely to use a cell phone? (This would also explain the sibling post's lack of increase in brain cancer).
Sorry, all the corporations will ask for with regards to encryption is an exemption for themselves, plus an incredibly onerous process for any new competitors to go through if they want to get an exemption. The corporations will not protect you.
Don't forget that the TSA is likelier to kill you than are terrorists (because terrorist's aren't constantly pointing carcinogenic x-rays at every single passenger).
Note: screening is not especially harmful, what is harmful is panicking and receiving nasty nasty treatment that was entirely unnecessary. Also be warned that many doctors are innumerate (and other doctors are afraid you'll sue them). If you screen for cancer more often or outside the recommended age ranges, be damn sure you calculate the odds it's a false positive and that you understand both the risks of receiving unnecessary treatment and the risks of postponing treatment. If you can't do this, you should simply avoid screening more often than recommended or outside the recommended age ranges.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
Screening older women for breast cancer does more harm than good and leads to over-treatment, warn researchers.
They said regular testing of those aged 69 to 74 did not reduce the numbers getting the disease in the life-threatening advanced stages.
Even doctors find the benefits of screening hard to analyse correctly. Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has investigated this, using figures for a screening test for bowel cancer as an example. If the prevalence of cancer is 0.3%, the sensitivity of the test was 50% and the false positive rate was 3%, the doctors were asked, what is the probability that someone who tests positive actually has colorectal cancer?
Half the doctors gave the answer as 50%, when the result is actually less than 5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against PSA screening in healthy men finding that the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.[14]
Of course, but that's what the smartphone carried in the driver's pocket is for. It shouldn't be attached to the car.
Early detection of tumors can increase mortality (because not all tumors are malignant, but all cancer treatments to date are nasty nasty nasty).
Naked mole rats seem to have the right idea when it comes to cancer (or the various diverse forms of cancers if you prefer). They have an extra genetic component against cells reproducing when they're too tightly packed, as would happen in cancer.
The obvious way for car companies to monetize driver data, is to very emphatically state "We do not collect nor sell your driver data." Because really, what percentage of a car's sale's price do they think they're going to get by selling data, and how would that compare to lost sales/reduced car value?
You could start by looking at squatter's rights laws. If you live in a place for several years without permission of the owner, the place might become yours. (At least that's how things used to be)
And what about the not-so-innocent things people do?
Then the political correctness group will take issue with the *wording* rather than what was said. There is no limit to the nasty things one can say while using only polite, politically correct words and phrases.
Hypocrisy is the only sin for a moral relativist -- failing one's own moral code, a universal sin that can always be pointed out by anyone to anyone. However, it is incredibly dangerous to demonize hypocrites -- because they can become non-hypocrites by embracing the bad thing, and that is worse yet seems to be overlooked. So someone who smokes and admits it's bad and you shouldn't do it, is a hypocrite. But someone who says you ought to smoke too is worse. These days, it seems to take more courage to be a hypocrite and speak out against something even though you have a personal failing, rather than safely promoting that thing because you truly believe in it.
Also, hypocrisy is different from flip-flopping, different from changing one's mind as new facts become known, and different from compromising as necessary to actually achieve one's goals as opposed to merely making a show of unyielding yet worthless support.