It'll keep guns out of criminals' hands and screen out the mentally ill - isn't that what everyone wants?
Even though I support more restriction on gun laws, I want those who as well support to distant and forget the first part of this reasoning. It is stupid and illogical. Criminals will get guns in whatever ways whether or not they are legal. On the other hand, the restriction is and should be to ensure that those who want and own guns are reasonable and trained people. Keep it legal is what people want. It has NOTHING to do with keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Because the reason is flawed by itself, this allows those gun-hawks to use it against restriction. Seriously, don't every use this reason ever again!
But surely by common sense, the more guns there are in circulation, the easier it is for a criminal to get hold of one. Here in the UK you're unlikely to stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house.
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a.357 Magnum round.
Could you tell me where you live where it's legal to murder someone because you see them carrying out a minor crime?
Imagine that you built a road. You make the road free for anyone to use. But now suddenly you find someone you disagree with walking on it. So you block him. Are you preventing him from traveling or merely not assisting?
If it's the only road available, then yes you're preventing him from travelling. If it's just a nicer, bigger road than the alternatives he still has a choice about travelling on them instead.
When planning to impose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is to disarm the common people. Google understands this and is taking appropriate action.
When planning to depose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is not to rely on fantasies about armed uprisings, but to engage in proper popular political action.
Advertising/marketing is about more than just specific click throughs. I don't suppose most people watching a TV ad for an expensive car immediately pick up the phone to order one, but there is presumably some point in the car company paying for those ads.
The Navlab self-driving van drove cross country in 1995. It required a lot of human intervention, but it existed, so yes, that was done.
If a vehicle requires a lot of human intervention, it is not 'self-driving.' Unless you are one of those people who enjoy word games and count a central heating thermostat as Artificial Intelligence.
How does bitcoin deal with inflation and the finite number of coins?
As I understand it, extreme right wing economic theory says that with bitcoin (or the Gold Standard), there would be no inflation, as this was something invented by left wingers along with votes for women and other evil progressive ideas like Government some time after WW1.
Twitter and Square CEO Jack Dorsey said he believes that bitcoin will become the world's single currency within 10 years.
Am I the only one who's starting to get the impression that the people who are running these immense dot-com behemoths might not be as bright as we've been led to believe?
Could it really be that the so-called leaders of the tech sectors are really just a bunch of shallow jackasses with zero self-awareness?
They are generally humourless money-and-power-obsessed sociopaths, but I'm not sure they're stupid.
Being bright has nothing to do with being a decent human being.
Not that I am complaining. This process is better for (almost) everybody. But it shows how it goes with automation: A few hundred jobs lost, a few highly qualified gained. That is basically how this will work in most places. And the jobs are gone and are not coming back in some other form.
The standard slashdot response to this is along the lines of "well they should re-train as programmers and earn $300k like I do." Overlooking the fact that programming is surely one of the most easily replaced jobs once we have something even slightly close to real AI.
The "well regulated" clause of the 2nd amendment was intended that civilians be able to equip themselves to be an effective fighting force and have at least some parity against an enemy that could manifest itself.
A reasonable definition of this scope of functionality by today's standards would include more than just low caliber handguns. Specialized weapons at the extreme end of the scale such as biological or nuclear are not part of any normal infantry and fall outside the venn diagram of what should be considered necessary for an effective fighting force.
An effective modern army requires: artillery, tanks, helicopters, grenades, heavy machine guns and jet fighter-bombers, to name a few. You can't arbitrarily limit it to "infantry soldiers with one standard rifle".
the real reason is that high IQ is associated with inability to tolerate manifest injustice
Bullshit, there are plenty of bright psychopaths out there who don't give a flying arse about other people's problems or abstract notions like justice.
No, in most martial arts you really don't beat the crap out of each other. If you made something like karate a contact sport, each fight would end up with someone dead.
the logic which awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for getting himself elected
No, he got it for not being a warmongering imbecile like George W Bush. I assume whoever follows Trump will get the same, on the basis that it is inconceivable they could be any more stupid and dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Book 1 is just the warmup. The trilogy ends with the heat death of the universe.
Jesus fucking Christ have you never heard of spoiler alerts?
Yeah, it's not exactly "when worlds collide" is it?
It'll keep guns out of criminals' hands and screen out the mentally ill - isn't that what everyone wants?
Even though I support more restriction on gun laws, I want those who as well support to distant and forget the first part of this reasoning. It is stupid and illogical. Criminals will get guns in whatever ways whether or not they are legal. On the other hand, the restriction is and should be to ensure that those who want and own guns are reasonable and trained people. Keep it legal is what people want. It has NOTHING to do with keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Because the reason is flawed by itself, this allows those gun-hawks to use it against restriction. Seriously, don't every use this reason ever again!
But surely by common sense, the more guns there are in circulation, the easier it is for a criminal to get hold of one. Here in the UK you're unlikely to stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house.
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.
Could you tell me where you live where it's legal to murder someone because you see them carrying out a minor crime?
So I can avoid it like the plague.
Imagine that you built a road. You make the road free for anyone to use. But now suddenly you find someone you disagree with walking on it. So you block him. Are you preventing him from traveling or merely not assisting?
If it's the only road available, then yes you're preventing him from travelling. If it's just a nicer, bigger road than the alternatives he still has a choice about travelling on them instead.
When planning to impose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is to disarm the common people. Google understands this and is taking appropriate action.
When planning to depose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is not to rely on fantasies about armed uprisings, but to engage in proper popular political action.
Just saying.
...while they are probably more useful than other kinds of ads I still doubt they have a large impact.
I wouldn't expect most forms of advertising to have much of an impact, but companies are putting out a LOT of money betting that I'm wrong.
There's an old gag about half of advertising spending being a waste of money, but no-one knows which half.
Advertising/marketing is about more than just specific click throughs. I don't suppose most people watching a TV ad for an expensive car immediately pick up the phone to order one, but there is presumably some point in the car company paying for those ads.
I'm fairly sure that using the word "prosumer" is punishable by a hefty fine and several months in prison in most countries.
"The reality is if we have a choice between two candidates with similar skills, we're going to go for the younger one."
Younger people can be paid less to start with, and if slashdot is anything to go by they are happy to do huge amounts of unpaid overtime on top.
The Navlab self-driving van drove cross country in 1995. It required a lot of human intervention, but it existed, so yes, that was done.
If a vehicle requires a lot of human intervention, it is not 'self-driving.' Unless you are one of those people who enjoy word games and count a central heating thermostat as Artificial Intelligence.
The best music is always what was released in the year you were 15.
How does bitcoin deal with inflation and the finite number of coins?
As I understand it, extreme right wing economic theory says that with bitcoin (or the Gold Standard), there would be no inflation, as this was something invented by left wingers along with votes for women and other evil progressive ideas like Government some time after WW1.
What if you replace bitcoin in the quotebite with "blockchain based currency"?
You don't get the hoped-for spike in value of the bitcoins you have just bought.
Am I the only one who's starting to get the impression that the people who are running these immense dot-com behemoths might not be as bright as we've been led to believe?
Could it really be that the so-called leaders of the tech sectors are really just a bunch of shallow jackasses with zero self-awareness?
They are generally humourless money-and-power-obsessed sociopaths, but I'm not sure they're stupid.
Being bright has nothing to do with being a decent human being.
Not that I am complaining. This process is better for (almost) everybody. But it shows how it goes with automation: A few hundred jobs lost, a few highly qualified gained. That is basically how this will work in most places. And the jobs are gone and are not coming back in some other form.
The standard slashdot response to this is along the lines of "well they should re-train as programmers and earn $300k like I do." Overlooking the fact that programming is surely one of the most easily replaced jobs once we have something even slightly close to real AI.
The "well regulated" clause of the 2nd amendment was intended that civilians be able to equip themselves to be an effective fighting force and have at least some parity against an enemy that could manifest itself.
A reasonable definition of this scope of functionality by today's standards would include more than just low caliber handguns. Specialized weapons at the extreme end of the scale such as biological or nuclear are not part of any normal infantry and fall outside the venn diagram of what should be considered necessary for an effective fighting force.
An effective modern army requires: artillery, tanks, helicopters, grenades, heavy machine guns and jet fighter-bombers, to name a few. You can't arbitrarily limit it to "infantry soldiers with one standard rifle".
Please enlighten us: how does an eBook stored on my computer gets deleted and/or secretly edited?
Deadly microwaves beamed from invisible black helicopters, the same they use to remote-brainwash the sheeple into voting Communist.
the real reason is that high IQ is associated with inability to tolerate manifest injustice
Bullshit, there are plenty of bright psychopaths out there who don't give a flying arse about other people's problems or abstract notions like justice.
No, in most martial arts you really don't beat the crap out of each other. If you made something like karate a contact sport, each fight would end up with someone dead.
the logic which awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for getting himself elected
No, he got it for not being a warmongering imbecile like George W Bush. I assume whoever follows Trump will get the same, on the basis that it is inconceivable they could be any more stupid and dangerous.
Obama really did it... everything for rest of world to make US laughing stock
No, Obama was pretty well respected round the world, things like being anti-gun are a positive thing to most non Americans.
It's Trump who is the real laughing stock. He's as dumb as a bag of squirrel foreskins.
What this really means is these car-less people are now driving for Lyft.
That's right, they sold their own car and for their Lyft driving they use, um, ok forget it.
governments will lose power and the people will gain power as individuals slowly adopt a radically more free-market way of achieving their goals
I, for one, welcome our new Robber Baron overlords.