"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "
The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.
While I agree with most of your post, this I have to disagree with. Oil is a fungible commodity, and it doesn't really make a difference whether the oil we specifically use comes from Canada or the Middle East. The price of oil is first set by global supply and demand, and only slightly affected by shipping costs. So, for example, OPEC increasing their oil output means we pay less for oil, even though the oil we get is from the Americas.
Let me explain this with science. You have two groups. One that is exposed to peanuts as infants. One that is not. Fewer children in the exposed group developed peanut allergies. In other words SOME peanut allergies can be prevented by early exposure.
Your argument is the same as. "My uncle never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer. Smoking does not cause lung cancer".
Oh oh, can I try a science experiment too? You have two groups. One that is exposed to anticancer drugs. One that is not. More people in the exposed group died from cancer. In other words anticancer drugs cause cancer!
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Authorities are also struggling to curb extortion carried out by criminals, often affiliated with banned militant groups, who make threatening phone calls demanding money.
That's a nice dinner you got there. Would be a real shame if it got cold... buy my product!
I take back what I said about implicating an innocent -- being a DNA based approach, this won't implicate an innocent past the point where they ask for a DNA sample to compare directly with the DNA sample they used to generate the image.
A good example, and one might also note that identical twins have different fingerprints (for the same reason cloned cats have different fur patterns).
It may be snake oil now, but it sounds like it has a lot of potential. There are a lot of features that are genetically determined, or genetically determined within constraints. It seems to me that generating a computer-generated face is a terrible way to use this, as it seems like it would be misleading in both the way that might implicate an innocent, yet also excuse the actual perp (see also how most people didn't recognize a person from their generated face). To use this properly would probably require that a computer use its own face recognition, or an expert examine the suspects trait by trait.
Of course it's censorship -- Google is removing from public view material that it finds objectionable (or more likely on behalf of someone else who finds the material objectionable). Because we're talking about a retroactive rule change, this is somewhat worse than the censorship involved in enforcing a pre-existing policy/terms of service. And it's not just images they are censoring, it is also words.
It may not be illegal government censorship, in which case of course they have the right to decide what they will and will not publish. Then again, it could also be that the government "encouraged" them to implement this censorship on their behalf.
Even very weak evidence is useful, even if it would be too weak for court. If you know* the perp is African-American, you can't go around suspecting everyone who's African American, but you most certainly can eliminate all your white/asian/hispanic suspects.
*Sadly/amusingly, eyewitness accounts are not sufficient for this.
Companies are tracking you. Period. Whatever you do, on whatever site.
True but not everyone immediately makes the connection from "companies are tracking everything I do on the web" to "looking up the strange symptoms my friend has could result in my health insurance company raising my premiums".
When you go to buy a car, Superfish hires a team of gnomes to destroy the original documents, such as fliers or the title to your car, and replace it with their own documents with their ads included. If they were signed documents, then they forge the signatures as well.
Nothing, you merely confused "changes in the sun's brightness" with "changes in the Earth's albedo", added an exaggeration, and then pretended climate scientists are idiots. Same sort of thing that has been going on for millennia; don't like the news, shoot the messenger.
The objective of most news media is not to spread the truth, but rather to attract eyeballs. Hence the number of intentionally misleading headlines and reporting, and especially the choice of topic.
legitimate terrorist attacks have no source, no warnings, are unpredictable and incur large-scale casualties.
No, legitimate terrorist attacks are an attempt to force political change by use of intimidation or force (and a threat is intimidation). This doesn't work if the targets don't know the attacker or what the attacker wants.
On a more serious note, it will probably be a long time before genetic science can safely determine the source of intelligence or any way to manipulate it.
Oh but it won't be so long once we genetically modify ourselves to be intelligent enough to understand those genetics.
.yep, women makes lists of features they want in a mate.
Yes, but few people have the self-awareness to list what they actually find attractive rather than what they think they ought to find attractive. And it's further complicated because the traits that would be attractive for a short-term relationship aren't the same as the ones for a long-term relationship. This is exactly the sort of situation where you want to use science to find the truth.
Id like to see a breakdown on which scientists are getting paid and by whom in all their works.
Indeed. It's always nice to know who to thank for some research, and also whether there is potential for systematic bias in the experimental setup (ie, the scientist is also part of the experiment, and not immune to preferring one result or another due to financial or personal considerations -- also why double-blind studies exist). Hiding a conflict of interest is not only bad ethics, but also bad science. There are many ways to deal with bias, but pretending it's not there ain't one of them.
Certainly, but most people want to make a good first impression. And most people here are willing to study how to do that. Or are you suggesting that people here should not be true to themselves, that in this special case they should go with their gut instead of studying and learning from more knowledgeable people like they would any other issue?
Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.
It may give financial incentive, but "cause" is not the right word.
Compare this to eg putting a bounty on a guy. It had nothing to do with the murder, it was just a financial incentive, right? And yes, a comparison to murder for hire is appropriate as we are talking about assholes who put other people's lives at additional risk for their own financial gain.
The duration of a yellow light ought to be based off of maximum safety, not financial gain from additional tickets.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, all those Canadians complaining about the heat, amiright?
"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "
The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.
While I agree with most of your post, this I have to disagree with. Oil is a fungible commodity, and it doesn't really make a difference whether the oil we specifically use comes from Canada or the Middle East. The price of oil is first set by global supply and demand, and only slightly affected by shipping costs. So, for example, OPEC increasing their oil output means we pay less for oil, even though the oil we get is from the Americas.
Let me explain this with science.
You have two groups.
One that is exposed to peanuts as infants.
One that is not.
Fewer children in the exposed group developed peanut allergies.
In other words SOME peanut allergies can be prevented by early exposure.
Your argument is the same as. "My uncle never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer. Smoking does not cause lung cancer".
Oh oh, can I try a science experiment too?
You have two groups.
One that is exposed to anticancer drugs.
One that is not.
More people in the exposed group died from cancer.
In other words anticancer drugs cause cancer!
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
And release a video. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!
Authorities are also struggling to curb extortion carried out by criminals, often affiliated with banned militant groups, who make threatening phone calls demanding money.
That's a nice dinner you got there. Would be a real shame if it got cold... buy my product!
I take back what I said about implicating an innocent -- being a DNA based approach, this won't implicate an innocent past the point where they ask for a DNA sample to compare directly with the DNA sample they used to generate the image.
A good example, and one might also note that identical twins have different fingerprints (for the same reason cloned cats have different fur patterns).
It may be snake oil now, but it sounds like it has a lot of potential. There are a lot of features that are genetically determined, or genetically determined within constraints. It seems to me that generating a computer-generated face is a terrible way to use this, as it seems like it would be misleading in both the way that might implicate an innocent, yet also excuse the actual perp (see also how most people didn't recognize a person from their generated face). To use this properly would probably require that a computer use its own face recognition, or an expert examine the suspects trait by trait.
Of course it's censorship -- Google is removing from public view material that it finds objectionable (or more likely on behalf of someone else who finds the material objectionable). Because we're talking about a retroactive rule change, this is somewhat worse than the censorship involved in enforcing a pre-existing policy/terms of service. And it's not just images they are censoring, it is also words.
It may not be illegal government censorship, in which case of course they have the right to decide what they will and will not publish. Then again, it could also be that the government "encouraged" them to implement this censorship on their behalf.
Even very weak evidence is useful, even if it would be too weak for court. If you know* the perp is African-American, you can't go around suspecting everyone who's African American, but you most certainly can eliminate all your white/asian/hispanic suspects.
*Sadly/amusingly, eyewitness accounts are not sufficient for this.
You are joking right? POLITICIANS are responsible for more human deaths than any other profession, period.
Bah, they got nothing on mothers.
Companies are tracking you. Period. Whatever you do, on whatever site.
True but not everyone immediately makes the connection from "companies are tracking everything I do on the web" to "looking up the strange symptoms my friend has could result in my health insurance company raising my premiums".
The same journal has a study showing pot-smoking teens are 60% less likely to finish high school than ones who don't.
What laws were the control group regularly breaking?
Killer robots are nothing more than really advanced booby-traps.
When you go to buy a car, Superfish hires a team of gnomes to destroy the original documents, such as fliers or the title to your car, and replace it with their own documents with their ads included. If they were signed documents, then they forge the signatures as well.
What the fuck happened?
Nothing, you merely confused "changes in the sun's brightness" with "changes in the Earth's albedo", added an exaggeration, and then pretended climate scientists are idiots. Same sort of thing that has been going on for millennia; don't like the news, shoot the messenger.
The objective of most news media is not to spread the truth, but rather to attract eyeballs. Hence the number of intentionally misleading headlines and reporting, and especially the choice of topic.
legitimate terrorist attacks have no source, no warnings, are unpredictable and incur large-scale casualties.
No, legitimate terrorist attacks are an attempt to force political change by use of intimidation or force (and a threat is intimidation). This doesn't work if the targets don't know the attacker or what the attacker wants.
On a more serious note, it will probably be a long time before genetic science can safely determine the source of intelligence or any way to manipulate it.
Oh but it won't be so long once we genetically modify ourselves to be intelligent enough to understand those genetics.
.yep, women makes lists of features they want in a mate.
Yes, but few people have the self-awareness to list what they actually find attractive rather than what they think they ought to find attractive. And it's further complicated because the traits that would be attractive for a short-term relationship aren't the same as the ones for a long-term relationship. This is exactly the sort of situation where you want to use science to find the truth.
Id like to see a breakdown on which scientists are getting paid and by whom in all their works.
Indeed. It's always nice to know who to thank for some research, and also whether there is potential for systematic bias in the experimental setup (ie, the scientist is also part of the experiment, and not immune to preferring one result or another due to financial or personal considerations -- also why double-blind studies exist). Hiding a conflict of interest is not only bad ethics, but also bad science. There are many ways to deal with bias, but pretending it's not there ain't one of them.
Yes, it was no surprise he had other ethical problems. It was only a question of how Soon it would get found out.
The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
Certainly, but most people want to make a good first impression. And most people here are willing to study how to do that. Or are you suggesting that people here should not be true to themselves, that in this special case they should go with their gut instead of studying and learning from more knowledgeable people like they would any other issue?
The best trick is for parents to actually supervise their children.
You mean that parental control has to involve parents!?! Oh, the humanity!
It may give financial incentive, but "cause" is not the right word.
Compare this to eg putting a bounty on a guy. It had nothing to do with the murder, it was just a financial incentive, right? And yes, a comparison to murder for hire is appropriate as we are talking about assholes who put other people's lives at additional risk for their own financial gain.
The duration of a yellow light ought to be based off of maximum safety, not financial gain from additional tickets.