Another thing that comes to mind is that quality, up-to-date information about this outbreak is hard to find. About the most reliable source is the wikipedia page on the outbreak.
Well you can rest easy on this point -- Wikipedia frequently is the very best source for important news stories. This is largely because of Wikipedia's design, especially as compared to the design of news companies or government agencies.
^ What he said. In this particular case, I was so oblivious that they could have just snatched the phone out of my hand without need of any weapons at all to threaten me.
Indeed it is an all around too bad for the millions of _screen lookers_ everywhere --- by focusing on that little lighted panel all the time they never know how much they have been missing out
That reminds me of the one and only time I got robbed. I'm walking along, texting on my cell phone, and next thing I know there's a punk kid pointing a gun at me. In broad daylight. Probably a newbie, as he looked really scared and all he took was my phone. Also, I didn't even notice the two henchmen behind me. Needless to say, no more zombie walking for me.
You already contribute financially to illegal activities. You do business with a business which is used by criminals, saving the criminals money due to economies of scale for said business -- examples: internet, phone, mail, transportation. If you think it is acceptable to do this because it has a lot of legitimate users, what makes it different for Tor? Lots of people value their privacy, especially now that the NSA is unconstitutionally searching all your unencrypted communication. If locks are to keep honest people honest, encryption is to keep dishonest government slightly more honest.
I will never understand the quasi-religious fervor some people have about space.
It's the founder effect -- when a small group leaves and establishes a new colony, that group's genes become the dominant genes in the region, even if followed by a relatively large influx some time later. This means that the risks of exploration are countered with the possibility of a tremendous reward in terms of breeding capacity. Thus natural selection favors genes for exploration.... sorry, I meant "A love for exploration."
The reason no one does realistic space battles in movies is that they would violate people's intuitions just to be incredibly boring, at least if you're trying to show the battle. On the other hand, it would be easy and require little/no cgi to actually make a realistic space battle video, but you'd definitely want to focus on the humans at their consoles rather than on the battlefield. It would be little different than a submarine combat video, I would think.
It's cheaper for everyone. For 8 hours work at minimum wage, you can buy hundreds of pounds of corn (or other grain). That may not be free but in the old days that would probably cost a whole season's work.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as a free lunch, despite politicians pretending otherwise for several thousand years.
But we have made lunches much cheaper over the years, which is similar to adding several free lunches. Used to be if you wanted light at night you had to gather olives and squeeze the oil out of them, and keep refilling your lamp, or similar for candles. Now you can buy a solar panel to recharge the battery over the day and power your light at night, which ends up being so much cheaper and more convenient.
It's legitimate satire. His "business plan" would be possible to implement before graphene even comes close to fulfilling its "promise". Not saying graphene doesn't have the potential, it's just that sort of thing takes way longer than journalists are allowed by their editors to admit.
True, but I'm pretty sure that in this case cause and effect works in both directions (ie, it's a viscous cycle). Being poor makes making poor choices more attractive, and making poor choices makes you poor.
But if you make poor choices, having money won't solve your problems. For example, 70% of people who unexpectedly gain a fortune, end up bankrupt 7 years later (link).
Something happens between the election and the inauguration that changes a president's entire ethos.
Makes you wonder what happens when they brief the incoming president on The Big Secret Stuff.
I think the briefing consists of: The results are in, you won the election. You can stop pandering now and do whatever the hell you actually planned to do.
This is the price that we pay for popularity contest elections, plus that politicians aren't held accountable for breaking campaign promises. (Forcing them to keep campaign promises would be a whole different set of problems)
Would you trust cancer research funded by tobacco companies, environmental research financed by oil/coal companies, etc? In the same way, privacy research sponsored by Google automatically falls under a cloud of suspicion, along with the researchers doing so and Google for sponsoring it, should it find that there is no need for privacy intervention. On the other hand, if it finds the opposite, you get "even research funded by Google says people's privacy is being abused". This makes it a lose/lose for both Google and the researchers. This is somewhat, but not entirely, mitigated if the funds are for any research.
In short, it is not evil for a donor to say funds can't be used for a study where there doing so would produce a conflict of interest.
If a rational person wouldn't use nukes due to Mutually Assured Destruction, what is to stop another rational person who has nukes from simply taking whatever he wants and if you try to stop me it's nuke time? After all, rationally speaking the worst result possible is turning your country into a glass parking lot. So, if you want your ownership of nukes to defend you against other things, such as bombing with conventional weapons or invasion, then you need to be willing to be the first to use nukes. But if that's allowed, nukes go from being an expensive defense against getting nuked to an invaluable general defensive weapon, and everyone will want one. This is something people should think about when they say that nukes prevent WWIII -- this requires the various nations to be willing to launch the first nuke.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing that comes to mind is that quality, up-to-date information about this outbreak is hard to find. About the most reliable source is the wikipedia page on the outbreak.
Well you can rest easy on this point -- Wikipedia frequently is the very best source for important news stories. This is largely because of Wikipedia's design, especially as compared to the design of news companies or government agencies.
^ What he said. In this particular case, I was so oblivious that they could have just snatched the phone out of my hand without need of any weapons at all to threaten me.
The first five posts got modded down to zero. I got jealous so I got one too. Oh oh, now someone's going to think this is funny.
Indeed it is an all around too bad for the millions of _screen lookers_ everywhere --- by focusing on that little lighted panel all the time they never know how much they have been missing out
That reminds me of the one and only time I got robbed. I'm walking along, texting on my cell phone, and next thing I know there's a punk kid pointing a gun at me. In broad daylight. Probably a newbie, as he looked really scared and all he took was my phone. Also, I didn't even notice the two henchmen behind me. Needless to say, no more zombie walking for me.
You already contribute financially to illegal activities. You do business with a business which is used by criminals, saving the criminals money due to economies of scale for said business -- examples: internet, phone, mail, transportation. If you think it is acceptable to do this because it has a lot of legitimate users, what makes it different for Tor? Lots of people value their privacy, especially now that the NSA is unconstitutionally searching all your unencrypted communication. If locks are to keep honest people honest, encryption is to keep dishonest government slightly more honest.
I will never understand the quasi-religious fervor some people have about space.
It's the founder effect -- when a small group leaves and establishes a new colony, that group's genes become the dominant genes in the region, even if followed by a relatively large influx some time later. This means that the risks of exploration are countered with the possibility of a tremendous reward in terms of breeding capacity. Thus natural selection favors genes for exploration. ... sorry, I meant "A love for exploration."
The reason no one does realistic space battles in movies is that they would violate people's intuitions just to be incredibly boring, at least if you're trying to show the battle. On the other hand, it would be easy and require little/no cgi to actually make a realistic space battle video, but you'd definitely want to focus on the humans at their consoles rather than on the battlefield. It would be little different than a submarine combat video, I would think.
Let me play games all day and some day I'll be rich!
He got a stroke of inspiration?
It's cheaper for everyone. For 8 hours work at minimum wage, you can buy hundreds of pounds of corn (or other grain). That may not be free but in the old days that would probably cost a whole season's work.
If it were me I'd be looking to get my ass off the volcano ASAP.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as a free lunch, despite politicians pretending otherwise for several thousand years.
But we have made lunches much cheaper over the years, which is similar to adding several free lunches. Used to be if you wanted light at night you had to gather olives and squeeze the oil out of them, and keep refilling your lamp, or similar for candles. Now you can buy a solar panel to recharge the battery over the day and power your light at night, which ends up being so much cheaper and more convenient.
It's legitimate satire. His "business plan" would be possible to implement before graphene even comes close to fulfilling its "promise". Not saying graphene doesn't have the potential, it's just that sort of thing takes way longer than journalists are allowed by their editors to admit.
True, but I'm pretty sure that in this case cause and effect works in both directions (ie, it's a viscous cycle). Being poor makes making poor choices more attractive, and making poor choices makes you poor.
But if you make poor choices, having money won't solve your problems. For example, 70% of people who unexpectedly gain a fortune, end up bankrupt 7 years later (link).
And what cause-and-effect relation would you suggest between poor people making poor decisions?
I bet Debian users are feeling a dash of pride right now. Maybe a few of them will take the opportunity to bash the other distros?
Did I say protect? I meant prosecute.
Something happens between the election and the inauguration that changes a president's entire ethos.
Makes you wonder what happens when they brief the incoming president on The Big Secret Stuff.
I think the briefing consists of: The results are in, you won the election. You can stop pandering now and do whatever the hell you actually planned to do.
This is the price that we pay for popularity contest elections, plus that politicians aren't held accountable for breaking campaign promises. (Forcing them to keep campaign promises would be a whole different set of problems)
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
Or an elaborate attack on Emma Watson by kicking the hornet's nest and pointing to her?
Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
Given a man and a woman with equal qualifications applying for the same scholarship, school, or job, which is likelier to get it?
So your theory is that women make less because their employers deduct maternity benefits insurance premiums from their wages?
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?
Aren't most Darwin Award winners also male? Just saying...
My favorite is sudo, with the rm -rf / options. Just type /
sudo rm -rf
into your shell, and all your security concerns will be resolved.
Would you trust cancer research funded by tobacco companies, environmental research financed by oil/coal companies, etc? In the same way, privacy research sponsored by Google automatically falls under a cloud of suspicion, along with the researchers doing so and Google for sponsoring it, should it find that there is no need for privacy intervention. On the other hand, if it finds the opposite, you get "even research funded by Google says people's privacy is being abused". This makes it a lose/lose for both Google and the researchers. This is somewhat, but not entirely, mitigated if the funds are for any research.
In short, it is not evil for a donor to say funds can't be used for a study where there doing so would produce a conflict of interest.
If a rational person wouldn't use nukes due to Mutually Assured Destruction, what is to stop another rational person who has nukes from simply taking whatever he wants and if you try to stop me it's nuke time? After all, rationally speaking the worst result possible is turning your country into a glass parking lot. So, if you want your ownership of nukes to defend you against other things, such as bombing with conventional weapons or invasion, then you need to be willing to be the first to use nukes. But if that's allowed, nukes go from being an expensive defense against getting nuked to an invaluable general defensive weapon, and everyone will want one. This is something people should think about when they say that nukes prevent WWIII -- this requires the various nations to be willing to launch the first nuke.