It gives the scientists a chance to beta-test a new modification. That way, they can determine how effective it is, without it accidentally spreading throughout the population.
I always thought that the term "politically correct" was intended to be hurled as an insult at people who voice objections to racism, misogyny and intolerance.
Actually, it is a phrase taken from Mao's "Little Red Book", whereby people who mindlessly obey Mao's teachings were said to be "politically correct" and thus OK, while anyone who dissents is to be considered "politically incorrect" and thus worthy of imprisonment or worse.
I have heard mostly older far-leftists use that term in exactly that way.
It seems to me that the real problem isn't that people protest against anything that offends them; it's that cowardly university officials feel that they have to respond to every organized protest under the assumption that the protesters must be right and that which they are protesting must be wrong.
I guess they think that in doing so, they are fostering peace on campus, but in the long run it only fosters injustice.
You should be able to edit a comment after you post it, as you can with reddit. I've often typed something in late at night, only to realize that what I typed was the opposite of what I meant.
Also, use something simpler than lessthan-br-greaterthan to mean newline (like two newlines).
Were the odds 10:1 that the results were a fluke?
100:1?1000:1? 10000:1?
Without defining the degree of significance, the phrase "statistically significant" doesn't mean a damn thing.
Exactly. If it can "go park" and "come back" from a parking garage, or parallel park on a street, then I will
be impressed. Backing out of a garage and onto a driveway is nothing.
Better to have a jobs guarantee and let the public (/Government) soak up any idle labour by building stuff.
The public sector unions would never allow that unless they were all made union members and received full union salary and benefits. Which would never be affordable.
He based his argument on a novel but quite defensible interpretation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
If you actually read this "interpretation" it says in effect "if we assume that people can deal with incompleteness and computers can't, then we can conclude that computers will never be as intelligent as humans".
Sure, but since he never gives the slightest reason to accept that premise, the whole concept falls apart.
Slashdot Mirror
The Ford F150 (the world's most popular pickup) runs around $30K, less than half that of a Tesla.
Kidding? It's called a glider.
So it is likely that we will still see fossil fuels used for jets for the next 40 or 50 years
Sounds like an excellent application for an electric plane where the electricity is generated by a hydrogen fuel cell.
How about the girl in the video talking about "squeezable and soft" (time 3:00), while holding the device in front of her humongous tities.
And for safety, we'll go at night!
It gives the scientists a chance to beta-test a new modification. That way, they can determine how effective it is, without it accidentally spreading throughout the population.
Actually, it was 32 years ago.
So what?
What sort of professional performer wouldn't want the majority of his audience to enjoy the show?
If 99 out of 100 audience members loved the show, but 1 protested it's un-PCness, the university will always side with the 1.
The topic that Cleese raised was the intolerance of satire on campus, which has nothing to do with lawsuits.
No one has to be offended by someone's attempt to get their goat.
They could choose to comment that the offender is an asshole, then let it go.
I always thought that the term "politically correct" was intended to be hurled as an insult at people who voice objections to racism, misogyny and intolerance.
Actually, it is a phrase taken from Mao's "Little Red Book", whereby people who mindlessly obey Mao's teachings were said to be "politically correct"
and thus OK, while anyone who dissents is to be considered "politically incorrect" and thus worthy of imprisonment or worse.
I have heard mostly older far-leftists use that term in exactly that way.
It seems to me that the real problem isn't that people protest against anything that offends them;
it's that cowardly university officials feel that they have to respond
to every organized protest under the assumption that the protesters
must be right and that which they are protesting must be wrong.
I guess they think that in doing so, they are fostering peace on campus, but in the long run it only fosters injustice.
You should be able to edit a comment after you post it, as you can with reddit.
I've often typed something in late at night, only to realize that what I typed was the opposite of what I meant.
Also, use something simpler than lessthan-br-greaterthan to mean newline (like two newlines).
Were the odds 10:1 that the results were a fluke? 100:1?1000:1? 10000:1?
Without defining the degree of significance, the phrase "statistically significant" doesn't mean a damn thing.
If they are not crazy, then they should be able to tell whether the field-generating equipment is turned on or not.
They can't.
How do you explain that food allergies were unheard of only 20 years ago
Because you are an idiot?
I knew all kinds of people with severe food allergies 30 years ago.
The "founding fathers" of the U.S. were also traitors ... to their sovereign lord, King George.
Google's self driving cars have racked up over 1 million miles in the past few years.
Yes, by going over the same carefully designed test track thousands of times.
Exactly. If it can "go park" and "come back" from a parking garage, or parallel park on a street, then I will be impressed. Backing out of a garage and onto a driveway is nothing.
Beside, since when did a politician get his picture taken as he cuts the ribbon for a bridge repair?
They have been replaced with transistors.
Better to have a jobs guarantee and let the public (/Government) soak up any idle labour by building stuff.
The public sector unions would never allow that unless they were all made union members and received full union salary and benefits. Which would never be affordable.
I am not a heartless bastard
Well, you are, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong.
I suppose that if you were filming trade secrets, that could be a reasonable limitation.
He based his argument on a novel but quite defensible interpretation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
If you actually read this "interpretation" it says in effect "if we assume that people can deal with incompleteness and computers can't,
then we can conclude that computers will never be as intelligent as humans".
Sure, but since he never gives the slightest reason to accept that premise, the whole concept falls apart.