Congratulations, you win the internet for Sunday, August 19, 2018!. Check in next Saturday to see if you win the internet for the week. I'm pulling for you!
Zobrist's comment was a typical smart-alec comment about a call he didn't like, not a serious call for the new system. Sort like "hey, did you lose your white cane" or "how did you make it to the yard without your seeing-eye dog"?
He got tossed for arguing balls/strikes and showing up the unpire, this sort of thing is 150ish years old.
Well, sort of - but you went to the stock market to *get other people's money*, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to have some say in how you conduct yourself.
If you want to retain full control, as you say, don't take it public. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
String theory is a different issue, mathematically sound and objectively consistent with all observations - but intrinsically indistinguishable. That's a lot different from something like sociology where it is inherently subjective.
Peer review can easily *enforce* all these ridiculous political biases. Essentially, you submit a paper to the very people who came up with the biases in the first place for their approval. Almost anything outside the 3 fundamental hard sciences is subject to this effect.
This is absurd stereotyping. The vast, vast majority of the people who created the modern western world were "Christian Conservative"s. The people who started the slavery abolition movement were "Christian Conservatives" on the principle that it was fundamentally against Christ to treat your fellow man like property - they wrote the words "all men are created equal", which you may be familiar with.
I am not a Christian, but it's absolutely ridiculous to categorize an entire - very large - group of people with these ridiculous narrow definitions. It's a sign of your own ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and need to play identity politics that leads you do it. Learn something about the development of Western Civilization, and grow the hell up.
More or less. I agree with you - but "white nationalism"? A grand total of 20 people showed up at the so-called "Unite the Right" rally this weekend, billed as a major "white nationalist" gathering. This is more-or-less what always happens at neo-Nazi get-togethers, a few morons giving Sig Heils to each other, and 2000 protesters.
"White nationalists" are neither "right", nor "nationalists", and they are nothing and mean nothing to national politics, aside from being dim-witted pawns in a game by the hard-left to stereotype conservatives.
There is nothing that is remotely conservative or "right" about these nitwits. Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government. Socialism/"National Socialism"/Facism/Communism or any other form of totalitarianism couldn't be any less compatible with that idea, and is fundamentally incompatible with the constitution.
That would be the military-industrial complex that *has kept you and your parents alive, despite unprecedented threats, for the last 70 years or so", to you, son.
Sadly. I think he was serious. It's almost a version of Dunning-Kruger, where being able to debug Grandma's computer problems convinces nerds that they are someone supremely gifted and smarter than everyone else in other areas.
Then you see something like Bitcoin, and it's perfectly clear that the obvious avenues for manipulation weren't even envisioned up front, some of them at least hundreds and maybe thousands of years old. And then they are shocked that someone invoked them.
They are not the "town hall" for anything. They are a private sideshow.
The right to speak freely is a function of natural law, not the constitution. The actual text says "congress shall make no law", which mean it is a prohibition on the government- not that it "permits" an individual from speaking. So in that sense, you are correct.
Congress has made no law abridging the freedom of speech, therefore, not a first amendment issue.
Some of the concept behind "hate speech" is verging dangerously close to making laws prohibiting certain types of expression/"speech" and that would be categorically unconstitutional.
Facebook, as a corporation of private individuals providing a service, is doing it, not the law and not the government. They are scumbags, because they do not actually believe in the concept behind freedom of speech, and are making it much harder to exercise your rights (for highly partisan reasons), but it's not illegal.
However, if someone came to my house or place of business and wanted to spout off about black people, Jews, "white privilege", Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, etc., I would be quite happy yo kick them out on their ass. But if they wanted to do the same on a public street, there's not a damn thing I could do to stop them, aside from arguing or counter-spewing.
It's scummy, anti-American, and highly partisan, but Facebook is a private entity and can do what it pleases with its platform. This is not a First Amendment issue.
Of course, you are also entitled to take your business elsewhere, which I highly recommend.
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." - Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine
Who could have possibly anticipated that a virtual "monetary system", which has absolutely no controls or laws governing it, by design, could be manipulated in the simplest way possible, just so someone could make a few million dollars?
I guess the same incredibly naive people who come up with it in the first place, and also, thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong or fishy when valuation increases by thousands of percent *with no actual value being created*. Has absolutely everyone forgotten the years 1999-2002? That's rhetorical, of course.
Because almost no one in the corporate world even understood what "blockchain" even means. They heard and saw a bunch of hype, they were afraid of missing the bandwagon, so they just reflexively "adopted" it.
It's very similar to the era where if you "had a website", your lack of a business plan or completely idiotic business plan, everyone jumped because "websites are going to be big!" Nobody know what they were really getting then, either, hence. Pets.com. etc.
OY VEY! Kepler has reaction wheels that do exactly as you suggest, as have all similar spacecraft for many decades.
The problem with Kepler is that the reaction wheel bearings failed on multiple wheels, so they had to use the thrusters exclusively, which it did for a long time now, and now, finally, they are running out.
Despite that, it was designed for a 3 and a half year mission and it is still functioning after more than 9 years.
It's really hard to see this as any sort of failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Fanboys tend to be humorless douchebags when their ox is gored.
Congratulations, you win the internet for Sunday, August 19, 2018!. Check in next Saturday to see if you win the internet for the week. I'm pulling for you!
But mommy told them they were the smartest boys on Earth and that they could do anything! Don't you go contradicting mommy!
This can't possibly be true! A major corporation would never ever lie about a completely unverifiable "fact" just to make money!
Zobrist's comment was a typical smart-alec comment about a call he didn't like, not a serious call for the new system. Sort like "hey, did you lose your white cane" or "how did you make it to the yard without your seeing-eye dog"?
He got tossed for arguing balls/strikes and showing up the unpire, this sort of thing is 150ish years old.
Well, sort of - but you went to the stock market to *get other people's money*, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to have some say in how you conduct yourself.
If you want to retain full control, as you say, don't take it public. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
String theory is a different issue, mathematically sound and objectively consistent with all observations - but intrinsically indistinguishable. That's a lot different from something like sociology where it is inherently subjective.
Peer review can easily *enforce* all these ridiculous political biases. Essentially, you submit a paper to the very people who came up with the biases in the first place for their approval. Almost anything outside the 3 fundamental hard sciences is subject to this effect.
This is absurd stereotyping. The vast, vast majority of the people who created the modern western world were "Christian Conservative"s. The people who started the slavery abolition movement were "Christian Conservatives" on the principle that it was fundamentally against Christ to treat your fellow man like property - they wrote the words "all men are created equal", which you may be familiar with.
I am not a Christian, but it's absolutely ridiculous to categorize an entire - very large - group of people with these ridiculous narrow definitions. It's a sign of your own ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and need to play identity politics that leads you do it. Learn something about the development of Western Civilization, and grow the hell up.
More or less. I agree with you - but "white nationalism"? A grand total of 20 people showed up at the so-called "Unite the Right" rally this weekend, billed as a major "white nationalist" gathering. This is more-or-less what always happens at neo-Nazi get-togethers, a few morons giving Sig Heils to each other, and 2000 protesters.
"White nationalists" are neither "right", nor "nationalists", and they are nothing and mean nothing to national politics, aside from being dim-witted pawns in a game by the hard-left to stereotype conservatives.
There is nothing that is remotely conservative or "right" about these nitwits. Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government. Socialism/"National Socialism"/Facism/Communism or any other form of totalitarianism couldn't be any less compatible with that idea, and is fundamentally incompatible with the constitution.
Oh, that old thing? What's all that talk about "equal protection clause"?
If that's what they cared about, that would be no issue. They spy on everyone and everything that moves, so they don't care about privacy.
They *do* care about extorting money from US corporations, because they can. It's easier than coming up with something profitable on their own.
That would be the military-industrial complex that *has kept you and your parents alive, despite unprecedented threats, for the last 70 years or so", to you, son.
Diagnosis is TDS, 200 mg Lithium Carbonate TID, orally, stat
At night, of course.
They made overpriced cases (seriously, $600 for a case?) and ran their business badly. They failed.
You left out the last step: Then they blamed it on Trump.
Sadly. I think he was serious. It's almost a version of Dunning-Kruger, where being able to debug Grandma's computer problems convinces nerds that they are someone supremely gifted and smarter than everyone else in other areas.
Then you see something like Bitcoin, and it's perfectly clear that the obvious avenues for manipulation weren't even envisioned up front, some of them at least hundreds and maybe thousands of years old. And then they are shocked that someone invoked them.
They are not the "town hall" for anything. They are a private sideshow.
The right to speak freely is a function of natural law, not the constitution. The actual text says "congress shall make no law", which mean it is a prohibition on the government- not that it "permits" an individual from speaking. So in that sense, you are correct.
Congress has made no law abridging the freedom of speech, therefore, not a first amendment issue.
Some of the concept behind "hate speech" is verging dangerously close to making laws prohibiting certain types of expression/"speech" and that would be categorically unconstitutional.
Facebook, as a corporation of private individuals providing a service, is doing it, not the law and not the government. They are scumbags, because they do not actually believe in the concept behind freedom of speech, and are making it much harder to exercise your rights (for highly partisan reasons), but it's not illegal.
However, if someone came to my house or place of business and wanted to spout off about black people, Jews, "white privilege", Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, etc., I would be quite happy yo kick them out on their ass. But if they wanted to do the same on a public street, there's not a damn thing I could do to stop them, aside from arguing or counter-spewing.
It's scummy, anti-American, and highly partisan, but Facebook is a private entity and can do what it pleases with its platform. This is not a First Amendment issue.
Of course, you are also entitled to take your business elsewhere, which I highly recommend.
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." - Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine
Us, too, but occasionally it gets enraged, turns green, and wrecks the house.
Not to be overly harsh, but...
Who could have possibly anticipated that a virtual "monetary system", which has absolutely no controls or laws governing it, by design, could be manipulated in the simplest way possible, just so someone could make a few million dollars?
I guess the same incredibly naive people who come up with it in the first place, and also, thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong or fishy when valuation increases by thousands of percent *with no actual value being created*. Has absolutely everyone forgotten the years 1999-2002? That's rhetorical, of course.
Because almost no one in the corporate world even understood what "blockchain" even means. They heard and saw a bunch of hype, they were afraid of missing the bandwagon, so they just reflexively "adopted" it.
It's very similar to the era where if you "had a website", your lack of a business plan or completely idiotic business plan, everyone jumped because "websites are going to be big!" Nobody know what they were really getting then, either, hence. Pets.com. etc.
OY VEY! Kepler has reaction wheels that do exactly as you suggest, as have all similar spacecraft for many decades.
The problem with Kepler is that the reaction wheel bearings failed on multiple wheels, so they had to use the thrusters exclusively, which it did for a long time now, and now, finally, they are running out.
Despite that, it was designed for a 3 and a half year mission and it is still functioning after more than 9 years.
It's really hard to see this as any sort of failure.
That doesn't make much difference - it still has to go somewhere.
I am no fan of the tree-huggers, but we really should be taking care of our own refuse.