will likely kill hundreds of thousands of people before its over.
What thought process did you use to gauge your order of magnitude there? I'm generally distrustful of largish numbers thrown out in an armchair analysis.
Because you can just as easily say "millions" or "thousands" as you can "hundreds of thousands". What makes that number more right?
Honestly, what's wrong with just manually altering registers to initialize the OS? We could have little buttons that just turn individual bits on and off.
Nonetheless, it must be reiterated that we found limited evidence for the rejection of vaccinations based on liberal or “left-wing” political leanings: When free-market worldviews are parceled out (and only then), people on the political left were less likely to endorse childhood vaccinations than people on the political right.
You gotta take the free market types out of the right wing to make it into a "left" phenomenon. This is a misconception that(as the study notes) derives from the fact that the most prominent public proponents come from the fringe left. But when it comes to the general population, rather than the promulgators, it's the conspiratorially minded, regardless of affiliation causing that particular problem.
I can't really endorse this either, because it basically falls into the general category of "tone argument". If the post has credibility, it should stand regardless of tone and ancillary statements about what other posters/mods might do.
This one fails on it's own merits. And that's all that should matter.
You're right that libertarians are more common than conservatives, and that they're loud enough to always be visible, and blindly ideological enough to mod people +1 agree or -1 disagree.
But even they, even combined with the paleoconservatives, don't seem to add up to a majority of users. The GP's post was pretty much just paranoid delusion and gross simplification.
1. As a liberal-as-fuck liberalite, libby lib, there is no malevolent conservative slashdot majority. This exists in your head and in your head alone. I post my totally correct liberal positions all the time, and only get modded down when I overly challenge people on specific subjects like misogyny. 2. While anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of the modern republican party, don't they don't even remotely compare in severity to paramilitary mostly uneducated third world anti-intellectuals. 3. Whether you're modded down or not, your statement is untrue on its own merits.
I don't know. Violent anti-intellectualism has a tendency to create shitty, miserable societies, but has more than enough historical precedent at lasting at least a few generations at some points in some societies' histories. Ancient China had bouts of it, so did Rome, and neither crashed as a direct result.
(It's obvious and you don't need to point out that ancient societies aren't modern societies, and the requirements for both are different). I'm just contesting the universality of the specific claim "A society that doesn't allow math won't last long."
Yeah, actually, when it comes to emotional manipulation, as a non-Scot on the internet, you pretty much only see the yes side doing that. I mean, I don't need it because it doesn't involve me, but I haven't heard even the most singular of pragmatic reasons for a yes vote.
Which makes me drop it in the same mental bin as "south will rise again" fuckwittery.
You'll think this is way off topic, and that's fine.
I just had to check, since the SFPD has made it clear that Sarkeesian reported exactly the threats she said she did, do you acknowledge you're wrong?
I read that news and decided to dig up the first person in the Sarkeesian thread who was saying that.
So... I'm reaching out to you, as one of the people who justified the shitbaggery that happened with that particularly idiotic line of reasoning, in the vain hope that you'll change your mind on exactly the evidence you demanded.
You are absolutely right that those things are detestable. I have no meaningful input to this discussion other than that I hate how marketing consistently misleads people.
I don't care if that comes out pro-apple or anti-apple, but modern marketing is ethically wrong.
Well, the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society is one of the longest running astronomy journals in the world, and, to my knowledge, has never done anything substantial to impugn its reputation. It also has a comparatively large impact factor. All signs that the peer review is considered of good quality.
- How can such a thing be stable? Is there any particular process that keeps one star inside the other?
Why wouldn't it be stable? More gravity means more fusion, not less. The theory says it's a companion star that goes nova, and then is gradually de-orbitted into the larger gas giant.
- What even/is/ such a body? If you were to travel from the outside to the midpoint of the body, would you encounter two barriers of destructing heat, with some emptiness (I'd like to say "vacuum" but of course space is not exactly a vacuum) in between? Or is it actually just something entirely unlike what you would imagine when someone says "star within a star"?
Oh, and just now I realize you hadn't read the summary. It's a neutron star inside a star. A neutron star is essentially a block of neutronium(essentially a gigantic neutron only nucleus) with some attached hanger on high energy plasma around.
Just imagine a block of the most dense visible thing in the universe crashing into a star so large you could fit a good chunk of the inner solar system in.
I can't be the only person who'd want to watch that firework display.
Obvious counterpoint to your ideological statement: without taxes all theft is legalized.
The construction of a an idea of theft exists as an artifact of a social system. To pretend that something is "yours" without a legal delineation of ownership is silly.
Obvious counterpoint to your pragmatic statement: details of budgets need to change more rapidly than taxes.
Additionally, combining surpluses and deficits from different programs minimizes overhead.
Whenever I hear the phrase "double taxation" thrown around as a reason to do away with a tax. Because almost universally, it's because you can hide your money from both kinds of tax by playing the middle between the two things that get taxed.
A. Because it wasn't written as a joke. It was clearly phrased as a meta-statement about the discussion that was going on. B. Because in that context it's a particularly noxious misapplication of the word "universal"
As long as we're talking specifically about Apple's factories through Foxconn haven't been alleged to have that problem. They've been noted for having awful, dangerous working conditions with low wages and frequent suicides.
So you're conflating actual slavery, which I totally acknowledged exists, with what Foxconn is doing, which is differently problematic.
Because universality is a real philosophical concept and this whole verbal semantic gameplaying doesn't make any sense at all?
It's a basic right, too.
It's like you took the wrong dictionary definition for one word, and then thought that had a definite implication on the totally unrelated concept. This argument comes from such an incorrect place, I can't even consider making some kind of completely pointless yield on the phrasing.
Unfortunately, while the first link impugns the character of Boeing, for quite reasonable reasons, it doesn't actually endorse the specific claim the AC(I assume to be you) made.
Right, and the existence of the unethical factories in the supply chain isn't the problem. It's the unsafe working conditions within those factories. Which is why the distinction against slavery is so important.
I make all sorts of grammatical errors all the time, but that isn't an example. That's called an "object phrase" and it's perfectly fine syntactically and semantically.
Slashdot Mirror
will likely kill hundreds of thousands of people before its over.
What thought process did you use to gauge your order of magnitude there? I'm generally distrustful of largish numbers thrown out in an armchair analysis.
Because you can just as easily say "millions" or "thousands" as you can "hundreds of thousands". What makes that number more right?
Honestly, what's wrong with just manually altering registers to initialize the OS? We could have little buttons that just turn individual bits on and off.
Regarding anti-vaccination: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science
You gotta take the free market types out of the right wing to make it into a "left" phenomenon. This is a misconception that(as the study notes) derives from the fact that the most prominent public proponents come from the fringe left. But when it comes to the general population, rather than the promulgators, it's the conspiratorially minded, regardless of affiliation causing that particular problem.
I can't really endorse this either, because it basically falls into the general category of "tone argument". If the post has credibility, it should stand regardless of tone and ancillary statements about what other posters/mods might do.
This one fails on it's own merits. And that's all that should matter.
You're right that libertarians are more common than conservatives, and that they're loud enough to always be visible, and blindly ideological enough to mod people +1 agree or -1 disagree.
But even they, even combined with the paleoconservatives, don't seem to add up to a majority of users. The GP's post was pretty much just paranoid delusion and gross simplification.
1. As a liberal-as-fuck liberalite, libby lib, there is no malevolent conservative slashdot majority. This exists in your head and in your head alone. I post my totally correct liberal positions all the time, and only get modded down when I overly challenge people on specific subjects like misogyny.
2. While anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of the modern republican party, don't they don't even remotely compare in severity to paramilitary mostly uneducated third world anti-intellectuals.
3. Whether you're modded down or not, your statement is untrue on its own merits.
I don't know. Violent anti-intellectualism has a tendency to create shitty, miserable societies, but has more than enough historical precedent at lasting at least a few generations at some points in some societies' histories. Ancient China had bouts of it, so did Rome, and neither crashed as a direct result.
(It's obvious and you don't need to point out that ancient societies aren't modern societies, and the requirements for both are different). I'm just contesting the universality of the specific claim "A society that doesn't allow math won't last long."
Yes, but why the hell would modern hackers(who are after money, rather than bragging rights) give a shit about your air conditioner?
They wouldn't. Your email account is still the better thing to hack out of your device.
If you know how systemd works, go to another thread, please only reply if you're ignorant and want to have an angry, ill-informed debate.
Personally, I think you should be able to start and stop systemd when you want it.
Yeah, actually, when it comes to emotional manipulation, as a non-Scot on the internet, you pretty much only see the yes side doing that. I mean, I don't need it because it doesn't involve me, but I haven't heard even the most singular of pragmatic reasons for a yes vote.
Which makes me drop it in the same mental bin as "south will rise again" fuckwittery.
Please, if this whole debate has made one thing clear, it's there will be no compromise.
You'll think this is way off topic, and that's fine.
I just had to check, since the SFPD has made it clear that Sarkeesian reported exactly the threats she said she did, do you acknowledge you're wrong?
I read that news and decided to dig up the first person in the Sarkeesian thread who was saying that.
So... I'm reaching out to you, as one of the people who justified the shitbaggery that happened with that particularly idiotic line of reasoning, in the vain hope that you'll change your mind on exactly the evidence you demanded.
You are absolutely right that those things are detestable. I have no meaningful input to this discussion other than that I hate how marketing consistently misleads people.
I don't care if that comes out pro-apple or anti-apple, but modern marketing is ethically wrong.
- Is the research reliable?
Well, the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society is one of the longest running astronomy journals in the world, and, to my knowledge, has never done anything substantial to impugn its reputation. It also has a comparatively large impact factor. All signs that the peer review is considered of good quality.
- How can such a thing be stable? Is there any particular process that keeps one star inside the other?
Why wouldn't it be stable? More gravity means more fusion, not less.
The theory says it's a companion star that goes nova, and then is gradually de-orbitted into the larger gas giant.
- What even /is/ such a body? If you were to travel from the outside to the midpoint of the body, would you encounter two barriers of destructing heat, with some emptiness (I'd like to say "vacuum" but of course space is not exactly a vacuum) in between?
Or is it actually just something entirely unlike what you would imagine when someone says "star within a star"?
Oh, and just now I realize you hadn't read the summary. It's a neutron star inside a star. A neutron star is essentially a block of neutronium(essentially a gigantic neutron only nucleus) with some attached hanger on high energy plasma around.
Just imagine a block of the most dense visible thing in the universe crashing into a star so large you could fit a good chunk of the inner solar system in.
I can't be the only person who'd want to watch that firework display.
Oh my, changing things is complicated and doesn't always work?
No, but seriously, you're wrapping a clear possibility in a blanket of cynical forgone conclusion.
Governments aren't actually interested in no one collecting taxes on their corporations.
Obvious counterpoint to your ideological statement: without taxes all theft is legalized.
The construction of a an idea of theft exists as an artifact of a social system. To pretend that something is "yours" without a legal delineation of ownership is silly.
Obvious counterpoint to your pragmatic statement: details of budgets need to change more rapidly than taxes.
Additionally, combining surpluses and deficits from different programs minimizes overhead.
Whenever I hear the phrase "double taxation" thrown around as a reason to do away with a tax. Because almost universally, it's because you can hide your money from both kinds of tax by playing the middle between the two things that get taxed.
Oh yeah, I totally know how peoples bodies can operate complex mechanical tasks like that without any sort of cognition.
Now a recent study has shown that tasks involving complex numerical cognition lower altruism, but come on. Thinking altruistically and quickly is still thinking.
A. Because it wasn't written as a joke. It was clearly phrased as a meta-statement about the discussion that was going on.
B. Because in that context it's a particularly noxious misapplication of the word "universal"
As long as we're talking specifically about Apple's factories through Foxconn haven't been alleged to have that problem. They've been noted for having awful, dangerous working conditions with low wages and frequent suicides.
So you're conflating actual slavery, which I totally acknowledged exists, with what Foxconn is doing, which is differently problematic.
Because universality is a real philosophical concept and this whole verbal semantic gameplaying doesn't make any sense at all?
It's a basic right, too.
It's like you took the wrong dictionary definition for one word, and then thought that had a definite implication on the totally unrelated concept. This argument comes from such an incorrect place, I can't even consider making some kind of completely pointless yield on the phrasing.
Unfortunately, while the first link impugns the character of Boeing, for quite reasonable reasons, it doesn't actually endorse the specific claim the AC(I assume to be you) made.
Right, and the existence of the unethical factories in the supply chain isn't the problem. It's the unsafe working conditions within those factories. Which is why the distinction against slavery is so important.
I make all sorts of grammatical errors all the time, but that isn't an example. That's called an "object phrase" and it's perfectly fine syntactically and semantically.
Try reading it again.