Okay, seeing as you're the one suggesting "common sense" as a justification, I'm going to go ahead assume that the other correction was the more accurate one.
Per topic, when pushing rapidly into a new niche, doing the new X a little better than everyone else expanding there makes you the top dog. Once a new option becomes available, it seems natural that evolutionary pressure would push towards exemplifying that niche in a short timespan. That's the whole idea behind punctuated equilibrium as a theory.
That's not to discredit the amazing work these scientists have done to deduce the mechanics of how that might have happened to early humans.
You misunderstand. We're not good rebels, who get things done(and I'm kinda thankful for that, many rebellions end up with pretty awful results). We're rebels in the sense that we see ourselves on the vanguard of seeing the bad people for what they are.
"But those don't count, because you can find new people to pay for your basic survival needs!" --My imagined straw libertarian reply
An interesting thing specifically about the term "landlord": It's a title leftover from when property ownership was synonymous with political power. The person who owned where you lived, also more or less owned you. When the lines between wealth and official authority that democracy ushered in weren't present. Anarcho-capitalists would have believe that isn't the inevitable consequence of removing the power struggle between the politically powerful and the financially powerful, but history isn't exactly rife with counter-examples.
No, you're mistaking intelligence and expertise. I'm a very intelligent person(yeah yeah, everyone thinks this, especially on the internet), but I wouldn't even remotely confuse that for the expertise in any arbitrary field I only have a passing knowledge of that other people have developed for decades. I understand calculus based physics pretty well, and the premises of quantum mechanics pretty well for a layman, but I wouldn't pretend I have the expertise to design a supercollider experiment.
I wouldn't trust myself to make an accurate medical diagnosis of anything. I wouldn't even think of representing myself in court(except maybe small claims).
So when my Doctor says "Take these pills" I might have curiosity about what they do, learn what I can about them, but I'm not going to "You don't know more than me!" If my lawyer says "No, seriously, plead no contest, it's not worth it", I might ask what the risks are and why not "Not guilty", but I'm not going to pretend to have the familiarity with the court system, and judges, and juries, and the results of similar cases that he does.
It's not a "need to be led", but the recognition of human limitations. You can only get so much from reading in your spare time. You can only manage to be a true expert in about 5-10 things in your lifetime, and that's if you spend literally all your time becoming an expert in those things.
Which they did purposefully. They saw the overcompetitive desktop market of 10 years ago, and went "oh well, hardware's doomed" and moved exclusively into a different overcompetive field, one where being a large corporation is actually a hindrance. The Lenovo spinoff actually created a moderately profitable long-term sustainable company.
I think there's a bigger problem. The US is a nation of rebels. We almost all see ourselves rebelling against [insert personal selection of powerful entities in the country here]. And we tend to see the people rebelling against something substantially different as being aligned with [our evil of choice]. Christians rebelling against secular satanists, atheists rebelling against Christian hegemony. Racist fucks rebelling against the "PC police", minorities and allies rebelling against bigoted fuckwads.
I'm not saying that every group has an accurate perception of the things they're rebelling against, nor am I saying that rebellion is entirely unwarranted. Just that "Not trusting" scientists occurs because they're "the system" to certain groups.
It could be Italy, where failing to predict an earthquake lands you in jail. Or it could be China, where grants don't actually cover the costs of your experiments, and many scientists publish faked results on some work to pay for the science they want to do. Or it could be Iran, where being a scientists in the wrong field nets you a free gift box of bullets delivered straight to your cranium, courtesy of the CIA(okay that's the US's fault too). Let's not forget that only few decades ago, in the Soviet Union, several entire schools of academics(like sociology) were considered outright verboten to study, on the grounds that they weren't Marxist.
And the US still has the single biggest science economy in the world, even if that's massively and disproportionately military in nature.
The problems are voters have with understanding and appreciating science definitely hold us back, but it could be a lot worse.
No, might makes right means, you don't fucking get a trial, off with your dipshitty head for impudence. You somehow have the audacity to claim that you turning down your carefully protected right to defend yourself from charges is some kind of infringement on your nutty libertarian douchebag fictional rights.
Good job on figuring out that reality means might makes right, but you suck at discerning the extent to which people are already looking out for injustices against you, and you're too damn lazy to even consider addressing it.
Worst citizen award for you. Can't even manage more than whiny slacktivism for your own interests.
All they've changed is how they contain it to limit the amount of light lose to absorption. I mean, to the user of LEDs the distinction is pretty irrelevant, but if you were wondering how you could improve on such a fundamental electrical component, that's how.
I think this now the level of argument called for:
u r dum.
Seriously, if not showing up in court was reason to dismiss charges, there would literally be no reason to go to court, ever, you stupid, dumb, moronic idiot.
That's clearly a prohibition of holding government office while vocally opposing the idea constitutional government itself. And ironically, it probably wouldn't hold up as constitutional in court, because, you know, test of office problems, freedom of association problems, redress of grievances, and naturally, freedom of speech.
It doesn't say anything about "breaking constitutional law"
2. Your taxes have never been reduced by the Government reselling this technology. That is absolutely zero dollars you or I have seen in refunds due to "selling" what your investment pays for.
Claim made without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
On the other hand, the tools themselves don't invade privacy. They typically need to be combined with the government's ability to foist them on data carriers to prove intrusive.
Like it's some kind of ordinance with jail time attached. I don't know how you're imagining constitutional enforcement works, but whatever it is you're thinking, it's not accurate.
1. Elected officials can break the law(this is the only thing that entails punishment). 2. Laws can be unconstitutional in whole or in part, and executive can decide that, and refuse to enforce, or the courts can decide that(more commonly), and throw it out, in whole or in part. 3. The manner of executive enforcement of constitutional laws can be unconstitutional, and courts can give orders throwing out cases that match those criteria. 4. The courts can rule in an unconstitutional way about constitutional enforcement of constitutional laws, in which case you're fucked.
If you're the NSA, do you hand out new secret encryption that you, yourself can't break? Or do you deal in purposefully flawed encryption, that generally works pretty well, but you can break in the back room when you want?
I know that the default majority slashdot opinion is, and for good reason, that everything the NSA is poisoned with malicious intent. But I can't actually decide if making useful security tools available is somehow against our citizens' interests.
I mean the compounding factors of large corporations, and big dumps of money, and selective availability all suggest problems too, but in a circumstantial way.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, seeing as you're the one suggesting "common sense" as a justification, I'm going to go ahead assume that the other correction was the more accurate one.
Per topic, when pushing rapidly into a new niche, doing the new X a little better than everyone else expanding there makes you the top dog. Once a new option becomes available, it seems natural that evolutionary pressure would push towards exemplifying that niche in a short timespan. That's the whole idea behind punctuated equilibrium as a theory.
That's not to discredit the amazing work these scientists have done to deduce the mechanics of how that might have happened to early humans.
You misunderstand. We're not good rebels, who get things done(and I'm kinda thankful for that, many rebellions end up with pretty awful results). We're rebels in the sense that we see ourselves on the vanguard of seeing the bad people for what they are.
This absolutely contradicts the first person to correct me, who said the explicitly said there wouldn't be with insufficient evidence.
You have essentially asserted the inverse, and I wish that the two of you would get your stories straight.
They do, but [...]
Nuh uh
Yeah, most people don't even have that much blood.
"But those don't count, because you can find new people to pay for your basic survival needs!"
--My imagined straw libertarian reply
An interesting thing specifically about the term "landlord": It's a title leftover from when property ownership was synonymous with political power. The person who owned where you lived, also more or less owned you. When the lines between wealth and official authority that democracy ushered in weren't present. Anarcho-capitalists would have believe that isn't the inevitable consequence of removing the power struggle between the politically powerful and the financially powerful, but history isn't exactly rife with counter-examples.
No, you're mistaking intelligence and expertise. I'm a very intelligent person(yeah yeah, everyone thinks this, especially on the internet), but I wouldn't even remotely confuse that for the expertise in any arbitrary field I only have a passing knowledge of that other people have developed for decades. I understand calculus based physics pretty well, and the premises of quantum mechanics pretty well for a layman, but I wouldn't pretend I have the expertise to design a supercollider experiment.
I wouldn't trust myself to make an accurate medical diagnosis of anything. I wouldn't even think of representing myself in court(except maybe small claims).
So when my Doctor says "Take these pills" I might have curiosity about what they do, learn what I can about them, but I'm not going to "You don't know more than me!" If my lawyer says "No, seriously, plead no contest, it's not worth it", I might ask what the risks are and why not "Not guilty", but I'm not going to pretend to have the familiarity with the court system, and judges, and juries, and the results of similar cases that he does.
It's not a "need to be led", but the recognition of human limitations. You can only get so much from reading in your spare time. You can only manage to be a true expert in about 5-10 things in your lifetime, and that's if you spend literally all your time becoming an expert in those things.
Which they did purposefully. They saw the overcompetitive desktop market of 10 years ago, and went "oh well, hardware's doomed" and moved exclusively into a different overcompetive field, one where being a large corporation is actually a hindrance. The Lenovo spinoff actually created a moderately profitable long-term sustainable company.
I think there's a bigger problem. The US is a nation of rebels. We almost all see ourselves rebelling against [insert personal selection of powerful entities in the country here]. And we tend to see the people rebelling against something substantially different as being aligned with [our evil of choice]. Christians rebelling against secular satanists, atheists rebelling against Christian hegemony. Racist fucks rebelling against the "PC police", minorities and allies rebelling against bigoted fuckwads.
I'm not saying that every group has an accurate perception of the things they're rebelling against, nor am I saying that rebellion is entirely unwarranted. Just that "Not trusting" scientists occurs because they're "the system" to certain groups.
Eh. I don't entirely disagree, but...
It could be Italy, where failing to predict an earthquake lands you in jail.
Or it could be China, where grants don't actually cover the costs of your experiments, and many scientists publish faked results on some work to pay for the science they want to do.
Or it could be Iran, where being a scientists in the wrong field nets you a free gift box of bullets delivered straight to your cranium, courtesy of the CIA(okay that's the US's fault too).
Let's not forget that only few decades ago, in the Soviet Union, several entire schools of academics(like sociology) were considered outright verboten to study, on the grounds that they weren't Marxist.
And the US still has the single biggest science economy in the world, even if that's massively and disproportionately military in nature.
The problems are voters have with understanding and appreciating science definitely hold us back, but it could be a lot worse.
Do you claim to know where the money went?
No, might makes right means, you don't fucking get a trial, off with your dipshitty head for impudence. You somehow have the audacity to claim that you turning down your carefully protected right to defend yourself from charges is some kind of infringement on your nutty libertarian douchebag fictional rights.
Good job on figuring out that reality means might makes right, but you suck at discerning the extent to which people are already looking out for injustices against you, and you're too damn lazy to even consider addressing it.
Worst citizen award for you. Can't even manage more than whiny slacktivism for your own interests.
Or I could prove you wrong by saying that money doesn't vanish into thin air. hey look. Logical deduction.
Yes. Absolutely useful. Absolutely great engineering. Didn't mean to be dismissive.
All they've changed is how they contain it to limit the amount of light lose to absorption. I mean, to the user of LEDs the distinction is pretty irrelevant, but if you were wondering how you could improve on such a fundamental electrical component, that's how.
I think this now the level of argument called for:
u r dum.
Seriously, if not showing up in court was reason to dismiss charges, there would literally be no reason to go to court, ever, you stupid, dumb, moronic idiot.
No it isn't.
Do you pull things from your ass?
That's clearly a prohibition of holding government office while vocally opposing the idea constitutional government itself. And ironically, it probably wouldn't hold up as constitutional in court, because, you know, test of office problems, freedom of association problems, redress of grievances, and naturally, freedom of speech.
It doesn't say anything about "breaking constitutional law"
2. Your taxes have never been reduced by the Government reselling this technology. That is absolutely zero dollars you or I have seen in refunds due to "selling" what your investment pays for.
Claim made without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
No clearly secure protocols are evil, since they're flawed!
Have you thought about yelling your porn preferences to your neighbors across the street, and just hoping they'll have some to share?
Statement no one is going to argue with to justify myself:
Access isn't a database, and access users aren't developers.
On the other hand, the tools themselves don't invade privacy. They typically need to be combined with the government's ability to foist them on data carriers to prove intrusive.
Let them break the constitution
Like it's some kind of ordinance with jail time attached. I don't know how you're imagining constitutional enforcement works, but whatever it is you're thinking, it's not accurate.
1. Elected officials can break the law(this is the only thing that entails punishment).
2. Laws can be unconstitutional in whole or in part, and executive can decide that, and refuse to enforce, or the courts can decide that(more commonly), and throw it out, in whole or in part.
3. The manner of executive enforcement of constitutional laws can be unconstitutional, and courts can give orders throwing out cases that match those criteria.
4. The courts can rule in an unconstitutional way about constitutional enforcement of constitutional laws, in which case you're fucked.
If you're the NSA, do you hand out new secret encryption that you, yourself can't break? Or do you deal in purposefully flawed encryption, that generally works pretty well, but you can break in the back room when you want?
I know that the default majority slashdot opinion is, and for good reason, that everything the NSA is poisoned with malicious intent. But I can't actually decide if making useful security tools available is somehow against our citizens' interests.
I mean the compounding factors of large corporations, and big dumps of money, and selective availability all suggest problems too, but in a circumstantial way.
I can't make up my mind this time.