Oh, no, this isn't a liberal/conservative thing. It's a hating Scalia and Kennedy thing. I know you could get that impression from the fact that I was accusing Scalia of being a republican lapdog, but that's just his particular method of being terrible. The man seems intent on attacking/defending things in court on a strictly partisan basis.
Even though I consider the second amendment poorly advised in a nuclear age, weapon(never sure why weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug are particularly special in this regard) ownership is nevertheless a guaranteed right according to the highest law of the land, and I would very much like any court of the country to protect any individual right we have collectively decided is innate.
I'd personally like a supermajority of Americans to reconsider the value of the second amendment and amend it like we did with the 18th, but my current political views shouldn't dictate the rule of law.
Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?
I'm not surprised to see Justices "Whatever helps big corporations the most is best for the country" Kennedy, and "Whatever the republican party says today is the founder's original intent" Scalia writing a dissent, though. I don't know what could have made Ginsberg side with them though.
You might as well say "suicide is the point of suicide" and kill yourself. Circular reasoning is lame, and you know it.
And no, I do not believe the underlying purpose of a police force is to serve and protect, but is unfair to say its purpose is contrary to that. Police are a manifestation of asymmetric resources naturally evolved as a part of social evolution. The opportunities that having a standing police police force outweighs the cost to a society, especially when there are good controls on corruption and excessive force.
I'm faced with a dilemma here: I'm an algorithmist, and believe most questions can be more accurately be answered, in the long run at least, by a well developed algorithm than even the most skilled human being. This should be a good thing, then, finding a better answer for funding projects, and accurately determining loans.
Where I became concerned, is that a lot of success is then predicated on some system determining that you'd be successful, and might therefor create a systemic problem sorting the undeserving into future success, by virtue of predicting it, and leaving those who have the spirit to succeed, but not the resources, to languish without recourse. It seems it could make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, even more than our current system, which already does so.
I feel this approach fails to account for its own effect upon the market. A world where you get divided into upper class and lower class on factors beyond your own control should scare just about anyone.
Look, I get that you're a troll, I really do. You don't have to wave a big flag that says "I'm insincere and trying to provoke a reaction". I just have a position that's pretty well supported, and if some moron wants to put up a fun little straw man for me to tear down, so much the better. Free credence to my claims.
Yes, yes, we get that you're a blood-thirsty monster who just wants to kill and kill and kill and kill over the slightest provocation.
Stole some bread? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!! Littered? TO THE CHAIR WITH YOU! Posted something mean on the internet? HANG EM LONG AND DRY! Minority on the wrong side of town? FIRING SQUAD! Challenged my dim-witted authoritarian views? TO THE GAS CHAMBER!
Countries with the death penalty have higher crime rates.
This isn't novel. I live in a regressive-as-hell southern city, with tons of sprawl, that isn't even all that large, and we've had this exact service for over a year. Yet another super-positive review of a particular company dealing in a not-all-that-interesting product.
Thankfully buzzword free, but still quite shillish.
Yep, any time I see a disabled light, I compulsively have to remind everyone I know that it means a all-way stop sign for the rest of the day. Kind of annoying of me, but I'd rather not see anyone dead(and I've seen some near misses when I was stopped at one before)
What's the goal of punishment? To make criminals feel bad? Who does that benefit, exactly? The victims somehow? Punishment can be an important part of correction, but punishment as deterrent doesn't work very well. Longer sentences after a certain point are correlated with an increase in recidivism. take a look.
What do you imagine you're trying to accomplish by punishing criminals?
Strictly hypothetically, what rock is this key under? And what's your street address? Just hypothetically, so we can look up the laws in your jurisdiction, and understand which rock not to touch.
The purported target, AT&T, is hardly the nicest organization, but the actually affected people were just regular people. This doesn't seem especially out of line with the USA's normal unhealthy sentencing. We want to punish, not correct, those convicted here.
As long as that attitude remains dominant, miscarriages of justice will occur within every branch of justice(except for the super-rich).
Uh, no, you're being obtuse. This is for EXACT words. So you search "fast car" you'll get articles for tuning a car for speed on duckduckgo(along with an infobox about a few things named "fast car") +fast +car changes the search to emphasize the words themselves rather than their meaning, and you get a lyric page for the song "fast car" which has "fast car" repeated often.
Both represent searches you might want to make, but google has decided the latter isn't important to anyone anymore. The GP was complaining about the lack of concern for the words themselves.
Already posting a similar thing in this thread, but give duck duck go a try. They support +keyword syntax that really does assure the keyword appears in the results. And their exact quotes work too.
I try not to judge people holding the GP's position. I have never in my life understood people who wish to "turn their brain off" to enjoy something. It's an utterly baffling premise to me. But it's a common position, and I hold no need to judge people over something so trivial.
However, being judged in turn seems to be normal(probably confirmation bias on my part). Daring to enjoy something mentally intricate seems to really grate on some people. I don't know why.
I reached a point where they didn't support one of the features I came to love in search syntax, and I switched to duckduckgo. I give it a B- on searching, but an A+ on features and privacy.
I remember when this theoretical technology was proposed about a year ago, and figured it would be a decade before they could actually do it. Cheap desalinization and filtration would mean an end to one of the biggest world health problems(safe drinking water), and could improve world-wide standards of living dramatically.
Well, I've heard 3 was quite good as a means of delivering absurdity. I never played it because my personal predilection is for more intellectual games that reward planning and forethought than the more action oriented games.
I agree with you, though that corporate games that are big sequels to big games tend to have less cleverness as numbers go up, and don't really necessarily deserve articles. On the other hand, if you try to pick niche things to have articles on, you run into the problem of a lack of notability, and lacking particular interest from the readers here.
Sure, I get what you're saying. Invalidates is way too strong a word. But you have to acknowledge that 5 is possibly not characteristic of the cancer when she died, that the strain may have had more mutation since being created, right?
5 copies of some chromosomes? That seems likely to be an artifact of many many generations of mitosis, not something the original sample had. The good news is that we'll have better experimental controls in future science. The bad news is that this might invalidate a lot of research.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, no, this isn't a liberal/conservative thing. It's a hating Scalia and Kennedy thing. I know you could get that impression from the fact that I was accusing Scalia of being a republican lapdog, but that's just his particular method of being terrible. The man seems intent on attacking/defending things in court on a strictly partisan basis.
Even though I consider the second amendment poorly advised in a nuclear age, weapon(never sure why weapons that use a small explosive charge to propel a metal slug are particularly special in this regard) ownership is nevertheless a guaranteed right according to the highest law of the land, and I would very much like any court of the country to protect any individual right we have collectively decided is innate.
I'd personally like a supermajority of Americans to reconsider the value of the second amendment and amend it like we did with the 18th, but my current political views shouldn't dictate the rule of law.
It wasn't apparent from my post, but I understand that abstraction here. The physical product just neatly embodies that character.
Seriously? Reselling a physical product you bought legally needed the highest court in the land to adjudicate?
I'm not surprised to see Justices "Whatever helps big corporations the most is best for the country" Kennedy, and "Whatever the republican party says today is the founder's original intent" Scalia writing a dissent, though. I don't know what could have made Ginsberg side with them though.
Calling something lame when it's a fundamental logical fallacy is fine in my book.
Well, sure, I agree, but we've also made progress in the past 60 years. To institutionalize the problem is not a good thing.
You might as well say "suicide is the point of suicide" and kill yourself. Circular reasoning is lame, and you know it.
And no, I do not believe the underlying purpose of a police force is to serve and protect, but is unfair to say its purpose is contrary to that. Police are a manifestation of asymmetric resources naturally evolved as a part of social evolution. The opportunities that having a standing police police force outweighs the cost to a society, especially when there are good controls on corruption and excessive force.
I'm faced with a dilemma here: I'm an algorithmist, and believe most questions can be more accurately be answered, in the long run at least, by a well developed algorithm than even the most skilled human being. This should be a good thing, then, finding a better answer for funding projects, and accurately determining loans.
Where I became concerned, is that a lot of success is then predicated on some system determining that you'd be successful, and might therefor create a systemic problem sorting the undeserving into future success, by virtue of predicting it, and leaving those who have the spirit to succeed, but not the resources, to languish without recourse. It seems it could make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, even more than our current system, which already does so.
I feel this approach fails to account for its own effect upon the market. A world where you get divided into upper class and lower class on factors beyond your own control should scare just about anyone.
Look, I get that you're a troll, I really do. You don't have to wave a big flag that says "I'm insincere and trying to provoke a reaction". I just have a position that's pretty well supported, and if some moron wants to put up a fun little straw man for me to tear down, so much the better. Free credence to my claims.
We being who? Not in my state/nation.
Yes, yes, we get that you're a blood-thirsty monster who just wants to kill and kill and kill and kill over the slightest provocation.
Stole some bread? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
Littered? TO THE CHAIR WITH YOU!
Posted something mean on the internet? HANG EM LONG AND DRY!
Minority on the wrong side of town? FIRING SQUAD!
Challenged my dim-witted authoritarian views? TO THE GAS CHAMBER!
Countries with the death penalty have higher crime rates.
This isn't novel. I live in a regressive-as-hell southern city, with tons of sprawl, that isn't even all that large, and we've had this exact service for over a year. Yet another super-positive review of a particular company dealing in a not-all-that-interesting product.
Thankfully buzzword free, but still quite shillish.
Yep, any time I see a disabled light, I compulsively have to remind everyone I know that it means a all-way stop sign for the rest of the day. Kind of annoying of me, but I'd rather not see anyone dead(and I've seen some near misses when I was stopped at one before)
What's the goal of punishment? To make criminals feel bad? Who does that benefit, exactly? The victims somehow? Punishment can be an important part of correction, but punishment as deterrent doesn't work very well. Longer sentences after a certain point are correlated with an increase in recidivism. take a look.
What do you imagine you're trying to accomplish by punishing criminals?
Strictly hypothetically, what rock is this key under? And what's your street address? Just hypothetically, so we can look up the laws in your jurisdiction, and understand which rock not to touch.
The purported target, AT&T, is hardly the nicest organization, but the actually affected people were just regular people. This doesn't seem especially out of line with the USA's normal unhealthy sentencing. We want to punish, not correct, those convicted here.
As long as that attitude remains dominant, miscarriages of justice will occur within every branch of justice(except for the super-rich).
Uh, no, you're being obtuse. This is for EXACT words. So you search "fast car" you'll get articles for tuning a car for speed on duckduckgo(along with an infobox about a few things named "fast car") +fast +car changes the search to emphasize the words themselves rather than their meaning, and you get a lyric page for the song "fast car" which has "fast car" repeated often.
Both represent searches you might want to make, but google has decided the latter isn't important to anyone anymore. The GP was complaining about the lack of concern for the words themselves.
whoops, shoulda paid more attention to the preview. this is the real url
Already posting a similar thing in this thread, but give duck duck go a try. They support +keyword syntax that really does assure the keyword appears in the results. And their exact quotes work too.
I try not to judge people holding the GP's position. I have never in my life understood people who wish to "turn their brain off" to enjoy something. It's an utterly baffling premise to me. But it's a common position, and I hold no need to judge people over something so trivial.
However, being judged in turn seems to be normal(probably confirmation bias on my part). Daring to enjoy something mentally intricate seems to really grate on some people. I don't know why.
I reached a point where they didn't support one of the features I came to love in search syntax, and I switched to duckduckgo. I give it a B- on searching, but an A+ on features and privacy.
I remember when this theoretical technology was proposed about a year ago, and figured it would be a decade before they could actually do it.
Cheap desalinization and filtration would mean an end to one of the biggest world health problems(safe drinking water), and could improve world-wide standards of living dramatically.
Well, I've heard 3 was quite good as a means of delivering absurdity. I never played it because my personal predilection is for more intellectual games that reward planning and forethought than the more action oriented games.
I agree with you, though that corporate games that are big sequels to big games tend to have less cleverness as numbers go up, and don't really necessarily deserve articles. On the other hand, if you try to pick niche things to have articles on, you run into the problem of a lack of notability, and lacking particular interest from the readers here.
Sure, I get what you're saying. Invalidates is way too strong a word. But you have to acknowledge that 5 is possibly not characteristic of the cancer when she died, that the strain may have had more mutation since being created, right?
5 copies of some chromosomes? That seems likely to be an artifact of many many generations of mitosis, not something the original sample had. The good news is that we'll have better experimental controls in future science. The bad news is that this might invalidate a lot of research.