I suspect that geeks generally lack the part of the brain that allows them to laugh at themselves. Kinda like reptiles lack that area of the brain that would allow them to experience emotional attachment.
Please explain the popularity of the IT Crowd, then.
Switzerland has a significantly higher rate of gun violence and death than other western European countries. Oh, sure, correlation doesn't prove causation... but what was your point exactly?
The linked article doesn't say what Kodi is either. Welcome to the future, where "news" apparently is only used to tell people things they already think they know.
I'm a very strong advocate of individual liberty. In my view, adult humans ought to have the fundamental right to engage in any behavior they choose, so long as no higher animal or other human who has not explicitly agreed in advance to participate is harmed in the process.
This is so broad a statement that it precludes any adult human from defecating, or, arguably, exhaling, without getting a petition signed by 6 billion other people. Every action you take has the potential to cause some harm. The hard question is always where to draw the line, and blanket pronouncements like this are useless for making those decisions.
Sort of. The article starts by talking about terrorists, but when they get into talking about engineers specifically they shift to talking about "leaders of extreme right-wing groups".
Um, that isn't necessarily a shift. More terrorist acts which occur on US soil are perpetrated by right-wing groups than by any other group.
And myriad used to mean exactly 10,000. The origin may be interesting, but it isn't necessarily relevant. Also, just because you haven't thought of a solution doesn't mean the problem is acceptable. There's no cure for cancer yet either.
You might have a point. Science has always had difficulty understanding how intelligence is inherited. Maybe they've been looking at it upside down, and it's actually stupidity that's inherited!
Show Will Teach Preschoolers How To Think Like Computers...
Well, we can't figure out how to get computers to think like humans, so let's see if we can train humans to think like computers... what could go wrong?
Whoever came up with that is as confused as an economist about how science works.
Of all the confusing and uninformative signs along the entire GWB, this is the one you fixate on? At least it tells you the correct direction to go in!
These numbers don't add up. The entire NSF budget (NSF is the primary federal source of funding for science research... individual state funding combined contribute around a third what the NSF does) for 2016 was just over 7 billion, with 6 billion of that for research. The allegation seems to be that about a third of that went to AWG research. I find the prospect that a third of their funds go to any single category difficult to believe without any evidence. (Reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds believe whichever trending social media story best agrees with that they already think.)
By the way, I'm pretty sure the second largest source of federal funding for science comes from the NIH. They offer greater detail regarding their budget on their website. They spend about 7 million on climate change research each year.
What race did he spout off about? Was it black people, white people or asians?
Learn the meaning of words, and you don't look so foolish. Also, you should actually watch the videos where he actually fails to say anything about any race, religion or ethnicity.
This gets my vote for most inaccurate statement in a wikipedia article (and I'm sure there are plenty to choose from): "In the United States, views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common in the biological sciences although controversial"
While it may be true that "views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common" among lay people and the uneducated, I would bet that you would have a hard time finding actual biologists with this view, and an even harder time finding geneticists. From a genetic perspective, the concept of race is meaningless.
If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.
Would you believe that there are actually some people (some of them who are men even) who think women can have value beyond being wives or girlfriends?
And once again, I have to ask: is [what you said] this important? Is *why* someone is hired more important than their competence?
And once again again, I have to ask: compared to what? Is hiring Giuliani any worse than the practices of the previous administration or the runner-up candidate?
For contrast, note that Bush appointed a crony as head of FEMA who completely fell on his face during Katrina, and Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan, who was completely outmastered in our recent Japanese treaty negotiations(*).
Ambassador appointments have a very long history of being handed to political insiders with questionable qualifications. Cabinet level positions are a completely different matter. Your point might be valid, but it would be better served by a less weak example.
Um, there have been 45 presidential elections which were bigger "landslides" than Trump's. 77% of past presidential elections had bigger margins. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
When you consider that Trump lost the popular vote by a relatively large margin, it is a huuuge stretch to call his election a landslide.
Aesthetics are subjective. In my opinion, Windows has been just plain uglier than the defaults in Gnome, KDE, and Unity for quite a number of years.
Also, I guess you don't count hanging, freezing, lost windows and dialog boxes, inconsistent or inaccessible user interfaces (try reinstalling the default photo viewer, or the calculator app in Windows 10) as rough edges. Windows is way behind on these also.
I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.
I am baffled why Americans believe that corporations have a "right" to a lower tax rate than individuals. After all, the Supreme Court has decided that they are persons, a position most corporations have supported.
I'm sorry to inform you that free markets are a human invention.
The belief that one should enforce the use of a human invention, without any attempt at improvement even when it leads to undesirable outcomes, strikes me as a rather shallow form of "thinking".
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you used the phrase "the people" to link to a statement made by a single person. "the person" would be more correct usage in this instance.
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that geeks generally lack the part of the brain that allows them to laugh at themselves. Kinda like reptiles lack that area of the brain that would allow them to experience emotional attachment.
Please explain the popularity of the IT Crowd, then.
You could say the same thing about Futurama. The difference is Futurama is funny, whereas Big Bang Theory has never made me laugh.
Switzerland has a significantly higher rate of gun violence and death than other western European countries. Oh, sure, correlation doesn't prove causation... but what was your point exactly?
This makes me feel old. It seems like only yesterday that relativism was a sin the right accused the left of.
The linked article doesn't say what Kodi is either. Welcome to the future, where "news" apparently is only used to tell people things they already think they know.
You can attempt to live in a reality where aiding and abetting aren't things. But that reality does not exist, so, um, good luck there.
Unfortunately, that's not true.
I'm a very strong advocate of individual liberty. In my view, adult humans ought to have the fundamental right to engage in any behavior they choose, so long as no higher animal or other human who has not explicitly agreed in advance to participate is harmed in the process.
This is so broad a statement that it precludes any adult human from defecating, or, arguably, exhaling, without getting a petition signed by 6 billion other people. Every action you take has the potential to cause some harm. The hard question is always where to draw the line, and blanket pronouncements like this are useless for making those decisions.
Sort of. The article starts by talking about terrorists, but when they get into talking about engineers specifically they shift to talking about "leaders of extreme right-wing groups".
Um, that isn't necessarily a shift. More terrorist acts which occur on US soil are perpetrated by right-wing groups than by any other group.
And myriad used to mean exactly 10,000. The origin may be interesting, but it isn't necessarily relevant.
Also, just because you haven't thought of a solution doesn't mean the problem is acceptable. There's no cure for cancer yet either.
You might have a point. Science has always had difficulty understanding how intelligence is inherited. Maybe they've been looking at it upside down, and it's actually stupidity that's inherited!
Show Will Teach Preschoolers How To Think Like Computers...
Well, we can't figure out how to get computers to think like humans, so let's see if we can train humans to think like computers... what could go wrong?
Whoever came up with that is as confused as an economist about how science works.
Of all the confusing and uninformative signs along the entire GWB, this is the one you fixate on? At least it tells you the correct direction to go in!
These numbers don't add up. The entire NSF budget (NSF is the primary federal source of funding for science research... individual state funding combined contribute around a third what the NSF does) for 2016 was just over 7 billion, with 6 billion of that for research. The allegation seems to be that about a third of that went to AWG research. I find the prospect that a third of their funds go to any single category difficult to believe without any evidence. (Reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds believe whichever trending social media story best agrees with that they already think.)
By the way, I'm pretty sure the second largest source of federal funding for science comes from the NIH. They offer greater detail regarding their budget on their website. They spend about 7 million on climate change research each year.
What race did he spout off about? Was it black people, white people or asians?
Learn the meaning of words, and you don't look so foolish. Also, you should actually watch the videos where he actually fails to say anything about any race, religion or ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This gets my vote for most inaccurate statement in a wikipedia article (and I'm sure there are plenty to choose from):
"In the United States, views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common in the biological sciences although controversial"
While it may be true that "views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common" among lay people and the uneducated, I would bet that you would have a hard time finding actual biologists with this view, and an even harder time finding geneticists. From a genetic perspective, the concept of race is meaningless.
If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.
Would you believe that there are actually some people (some of them who are men even) who think women can have value beyond being wives or girlfriends?
Both of those are false, "fake news". Trump mocked the disabled man the same way he mocked able-bodied men and women.
So he mocked able-bodied men and women's able-bodiedness? Please, provide evidence of this. Sounds like fake news to me.
And once again, I have to ask: is [what you said] this important? Is *why* someone is hired more important than their competence?
And once again again, I have to ask: compared to what? Is hiring Giuliani any worse than the practices of the previous administration or the runner-up candidate?
For contrast, note that Bush appointed a crony as head of FEMA who completely fell on his face during Katrina, and Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan, who was completely outmastered in our recent Japanese treaty negotiations(*).
Ambassador appointments have a very long history of being handed to political insiders with questionable qualifications. Cabinet level positions are a completely different matter. Your point might be valid, but it would be better served by a less weak example.
Um, there have been 45 presidential elections which were bigger "landslides" than Trump's. 77% of past presidential elections had bigger margins. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
When you consider that Trump lost the popular vote by a relatively large margin, it is a huuuge stretch to call his election a landslide.
Aesthetics are subjective. In my opinion, Windows has been just plain uglier than the defaults in Gnome, KDE, and Unity for quite a number of years.
Also, I guess you don't count hanging, freezing, lost windows and dialog boxes, inconsistent or inaccessible user interfaces (try reinstalling the default photo viewer, or the calculator app in Windows 10) as rough edges. Windows is way behind on these also.
I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.
I am baffled why Americans believe that corporations have a "right" to a lower tax rate than individuals. After all, the Supreme Court has decided that they are persons, a position most corporations have supported.
I'm sorry to inform you that free markets are a human invention.
The belief that one should enforce the use of a human invention, without any attempt at improvement even when it leads to undesirable outcomes, strikes me as a rather shallow form of "thinking".
oh yes, and it should be "for whom".
Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you used the phrase "the people" to link to a statement made by a single person. "the person" would be more correct usage in this instance.
Besides, Putin is more photogenic than Hillary.
Don't assume that everyones taste in porn is the same as yours.
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.