I suspect almost every gene will have some sort of effect on height, however small. Development, metabolism, each of the senses and the effect they would have on preferred food, immune system and sickliness, etc.
Well, odds are pretty good that in 100 years, not only will you have some relatively minor, yet important, changes to the climate, but also you'll be DEAD. So regardless of anyone fixing the climate you only have a limited time to enjoy yourself (though you might also consider leaving a legacy of some kind). And remember, in the not so distant future our planet will be carbon neutral one way or the other.
Shit, I *WISH* I could live like Al Gore. The guy has a fleet of SUV's, a mansion with a power bill that makes mine look like a joke, and closets full of nice clothes, rooms full of expensive shit, etc. Were that we could *ALL* live as "sustainably" as environmentalists like Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio.
...all of which you can have, while being carbon neutral.
No, we won't. The developed world is already zero or negative in population growth. Even better, it appears that this fact is primarily caused not by a cultural decision to have fewer kids, but by economics. It appears that the primary determining factors in the growth rate of a society are health and wealth: If children are likely to survive, people don't feel the need to breed lots of replacements, so they have fewer kids and invest more in them. Also, if people are wealthy and have a high standard of living, then maintaining that standard of living for a small family is much easier than for a large family.
In many developed countries, children are an expensive pain in the ass for 18 years, and longer if they don't leave home. In many developing countries, and in tradition dating back thousands of years, not only are children an excellent source of slave labor, but they're also your retirement plan.
Instead, we'll probably breed right up to the edge of capacity and then die in billions when something unexpected happens. Tragic.
Or, we could get our lazy asses into space and breed like bunnies who have lightyears of space and can survive any catastrophe short of all the stars in the galaxy going out.
Exactly what I wanted to say. If my entire company was based on data, and that data was all digital for ease of copying, I would certainly take a strong interest in who my security guards are.
On the other hand, hiring your own guards means that people can apply specifically to work for you, rather than as guards in general. While the same is true of tech workers, they really examine those and few are qualified to begin with (compared to what is needed from a security guard).
It seems people are now hating him, because they don't like the fact that other people like the software he's made to replace init, and are shifting their own contributions to work with systemd instead of init. And they're too lazy to make their own fork of init and stuff that depends on it.
We have juries not because they are great, but because the alternative is worse. Sure, if everything goes as it should, a judge or panel of professional jurors would be more accurate than a bunch of novices. But then there is nothing to stop corrupt judges (remember that judge who got bribed to fill up a juvenile for profit prison?).
The jury is there as the final check and balance on the judicial system (deciding guilt or innocence) and also on the legislative branch (jury nullification, declaring innocence because the law itself was wrong).
No, the problem is not Facebook's rule, it is the policy they use for enforcing the rule. This is much like "driving while black".
They can't afford to enforce the rule by having an impartial set of private investigators checking up on everyone. They can't afford the creepiness factor nor loss of business if they were to use their datamining to automatically identify people with made up names. Besides, the reporting based system makes people feel more involved and part of FB, while limiting the reports mainly to those people find offensive.
Oh, and limiting an individual's ability to report people has its own problems. For one thing, the asshole could have compiled a list of all the LGBT members with fake names, and sent the list to the Church of Hating Gays. Then the reports would come from multiple individuals -- and there would be repercussions to ignoring an entire church's reports.
I don't have a problem with the fact that there's consequences for a school failing to perform well. I have a problem with the fact that the design encourages poor quality education -- teaching for the test is a horrible thing to do to children. There should be a different measure for success (eg, measure the kids' scores on a test taken after school is over, such as the SAT, the acceptance rate of the students into quality universities, the average income of the students, etc) -- not only can these tests not be cheated, they actually measure how well the school is doing its real job. But because of the test, there's no time but to quickly fill the students' heads with boring, soon to be irrelevant data, instead of encouraging interest and curiosity into the subjects.
In short, there's different optimum strategies for teaching a subject vs for training people to pass a test.
While I applaud the effort they're making to prevent cheating on tests (especially by school staff), perhaps they should reconsider the root cause of it -- that by tying a school's resources to the results of a standardized test, they're encouraging the school to do anything possible to up the marks on the test. And I've yet to see any rules or policies making it illegal to waste class time by teaching for the test. They're wasting the youth's education and no one is calling them out on it.
The problem is not this guy nor Facebook's rules, but that the rules were enforced in a biased manner. This will always be a problem with only enforcing a rule after a report, because unpopular groups or individuals will be reported more often than the majority.
The device, which the FBI paid $5,000 for, was supposed to be sent to the Seychelles, but never arrived, which indicated the hacking collective had a mole.
Could someone please leak to the FBI that I'm selling illegal, pre-release bridges? Only $5 million each, plus shipping and handling. If anyone is interested you can contact me at obviousscam@didyoureallybelievethat.com
As far as I can tell, none of the articles about the incident mentioned that, if her lawyers are correct, then Maroney could be theoretically prosecuted for creating, possessing, and distributing child pornography. Of course nobody wants to see that happen, but the elephant in the living room is that before Maroney's photo leak scandal, many teens were arrested for doing essentially the same thing, and more of them will continue to be arrested after the celebrity nude hacking scandal is old news.
If its good enough for other teenagers, it's good enough for the famous ones too. If nobody wants to see the law enforced, maybe the law should be changed? Making exceptions for the upper class instead of fixing broken laws makes things worse, not better.
No known natural disaster is going to make any this planet less habitable than any other planet in the solar system.
You forgot to account for the fact that, in case of disaster, this planet will have 7 billion hungry, angry, selfish, armed-to-the-teeth humans trying to break into your survival bunker.
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
The increased connectivity during a disaster is a minor side-effect. You'll be able to use your phone in large buildings with poor connectivity, which is the major reason people will want this.
Slashdot Mirror
Just get Adblock already. It will spare you bandwidth, and increase your security (and your sanity).
I suspect almost every gene will have some sort of effect on height, however small. Development, metabolism, each of the senses and the effect they would have on preferred food, immune system and sickliness, etc.
Well, odds are pretty good that in 100 years, not only will you have some relatively minor, yet important, changes to the climate, but also you'll be DEAD. So regardless of anyone fixing the climate you only have a limited time to enjoy yourself (though you might also consider leaving a legacy of some kind). And remember, in the not so distant future our planet will be carbon neutral one way or the other.
Shit, I *WISH* I could live like Al Gore. The guy has a fleet of SUV's, a mansion with a power bill that makes mine look like a joke, and closets full of nice clothes, rooms full of expensive shit, etc. Were that we could *ALL* live as "sustainably" as environmentalists like Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio.
...all of which you can have, while being carbon neutral.
No, we won't. The developed world is already zero or negative in population growth. Even better, it appears that this fact is primarily caused not by a cultural decision to have fewer kids, but by economics. It appears that the primary determining factors in the growth rate of a society are health and wealth: If children are likely to survive, people don't feel the need to breed lots of replacements, so they have fewer kids and invest more in them. Also, if people are wealthy and have a high standard of living, then maintaining that standard of living for a small family is much easier than for a large family.
In many developed countries, children are an expensive pain in the ass for 18 years, and longer if they don't leave home. In many developing countries, and in tradition dating back thousands of years, not only are children an excellent source of slave labor, but they're also your retirement plan.
Instead, we'll probably breed right up to the edge of capacity and then die in billions when something unexpected happens. Tragic.
Or, we could get our lazy asses into space and breed like bunnies who have lightyears of space and can survive any catastrophe short of all the stars in the galaxy going out.
In my field (systems engineering,) discipline, troubleshooting skills and attention to detail are pretty critical.
Well, the military does tend to avoid people who have trouble shooting.
Exactly what I wanted to say. If my entire company was based on data, and that data was all digital for ease of copying, I would certainly take a strong interest in who my security guards are.
On the other hand, hiring your own guards means that people can apply specifically to work for you, rather than as guards in general. While the same is true of tech workers, they really examine those and few are qualified to begin with (compared to what is needed from a security guard).
There's no way that can take off or land in a city.
It seems people are now hating him, because they don't like the fact that other people like the software he's made to replace init, and are shifting their own contributions to work with systemd instead of init. And they're too lazy to make their own fork of init and stuff that depends on it.
We have juries not because they are great, but because the alternative is worse. Sure, if everything goes as it should, a judge or panel of professional jurors would be more accurate than a bunch of novices. But then there is nothing to stop corrupt judges (remember that judge who got bribed to fill up a juvenile for profit prison?).
The jury is there as the final check and balance on the judicial system (deciding guilt or innocence) and also on the legislative branch (jury nullification, declaring innocence because the law itself was wrong).
MOD THE PARENT UP!
No way. He linked to Beta!!!! I'd rather mod up a goatse link.
Vote Palpatine! No more evil, much more competent.
*Wonders how many people would rather vote for Emperor Palpatine than for our current politicians.*
No, the problem is not Facebook's rule, it is the policy they use for enforcing the rule. This is much like "driving while black".
They can't afford to enforce the rule by having an impartial set of private investigators checking up on everyone. They can't afford the creepiness factor nor loss of business if they were to use their datamining to automatically identify people with made up names. Besides, the reporting based system makes people feel more involved and part of FB, while limiting the reports mainly to those people find offensive.
Oh, and limiting an individual's ability to report people has its own problems. For one thing, the asshole could have compiled a list of all the LGBT members with fake names, and sent the list to the Church of Hating Gays. Then the reports would come from multiple individuals -- and there would be repercussions to ignoring an entire church's reports.
I don't have a problem with the fact that there's consequences for a school failing to perform well. I have a problem with the fact that the design encourages poor quality education -- teaching for the test is a horrible thing to do to children. There should be a different measure for success (eg, measure the kids' scores on a test taken after school is over, such as the SAT, the acceptance rate of the students into quality universities, the average income of the students, etc) -- not only can these tests not be cheated, they actually measure how well the school is doing its real job. But because of the test, there's no time but to quickly fill the students' heads with boring, soon to be irrelevant data, instead of encouraging interest and curiosity into the subjects.
In short, there's different optimum strategies for teaching a subject vs for training people to pass a test.
While I applaud the effort they're making to prevent cheating on tests (especially by school staff), perhaps they should reconsider the root cause of it -- that by tying a school's resources to the results of a standardized test, they're encouraging the school to do anything possible to up the marks on the test. And I've yet to see any rules or policies making it illegal to waste class time by teaching for the test. They're wasting the youth's education and no one is calling them out on it.
The problem is not this guy nor Facebook's rules, but that the rules were enforced in a biased manner. This will always be a problem with only enforcing a rule after a report, because unpopular groups or individuals will be reported more often than the majority.
The Aztecs put their money where their mouth is, and it didn't turn out too well for them. They had a saying, "You can eat money. It's delicious."
The device, which the FBI paid $5,000 for, was supposed to be sent to the Seychelles, but never arrived, which indicated the hacking collective had a mole.
Could someone please leak to the FBI that I'm selling illegal, pre-release bridges? Only $5 million each, plus shipping and handling. If anyone is interested you can contact me at obviousscam@didyoureallybelievethat.com
As far as I can tell, none of the articles about the incident mentioned that, if her lawyers are correct, then Maroney could be theoretically prosecuted for creating, possessing, and distributing child pornography. Of course nobody wants to see that happen, but the elephant in the living room is that before Maroney's photo leak scandal, many teens were arrested for doing essentially the same thing, and more of them will continue to be arrested after the celebrity nude hacking scandal is old news.
If its good enough for other teenagers, it's good enough for the famous ones too. If nobody wants to see the law enforced, maybe the law should be changed? Making exceptions for the upper class instead of fixing broken laws makes things worse, not better.
No known natural disaster is going to make any this planet less habitable than any other planet in the solar system.
You forgot to account for the fact that, in case of disaster, this planet will have 7 billion hungry, angry, selfish, armed-to-the-teeth humans trying to break into your survival bunker.
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
I'm confused... does this mean I have to wait for Windows 11? Actually, never mind -- I don't mind waiting.
The increased connectivity during a disaster is a minor side-effect. You'll be able to use your phone in large buildings with poor connectivity, which is the major reason people will want this.