1) Hiring SJWs for PR and allowing them to bully the people who actually like writing code into attending diversity training instead 2) Sacking harmless autists for writing heartfelt but painfully naive memos complaining about the diversity training after you asked them for their comments 3) Leaking the details of autist's memos to the SJWs at in the tech press, who will completely lie about the contents. 4) Getting sued by sacked autists 5) Convincing people who actually want to write code and not spend time in diversity training to work somewhere else 6) Convincing SJWs in the tech press they can make more money running diversity training at Google than acting as its sock puppets. 7) Becoming a world leader in diversity training and giving up completely on the idea of actually releasing any software. 8) Still having a workforce that is noticably less diverse than the fucking Alt Right Reactosphere. 9) Winning the PR battle in the tech press that all this is justified. 10) Banning competitors that allow free speech from your app store while claiming you support Net Neutrality 11) Winning the PR battle in the tech press that that is justified because those competitors are 'Alt Right'. 12) Getting accused by the Democrats of hosting fake news, the Republicans of censoring conservatives and everyone of being anti competitive 13) See your profits fall despite having vast numbers of users
A listicle based on failed Brit comedian and CURRENT YEAR man, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC saying things like 'late-night comedians have become the nation's front-running truth tellers'. Yeah, I think I'll pass. If he's not going to cry like Jimmy Kimmel, how do I know he's sincere?
The issue is not whether or not you should read Greek and Roman authors - you most definitely should. The issue is whether you should go $85K into debt to go to a US university to major in philosophy.
Especially as if you did they'd probably regard Plato as a 'dead white male' who had views on sex, race and politics that were - horror of horrors - not the same as those HuffPo writers living in a blue state hold in the 21st Century.
Not that Plato's Republic is a good model for a government - it's always seemed to me it was modeled on Sparta. Athens is more analogous to a modern liberal democracy, though modern democracies are representative and not direct and that makes a huge difference. Sparta always seems like what would happen if the US Marine Corps was the whole of America. Athens is what would happen if UC Berkeley was the whole of America - moronic mobs and a handful of intellectuals. Some of whom will, with the benefit of hindsight be seen as very, very far ahead of their time.
Still it's interesting reading Plato and Thucydides because it's weird how far ahead of the rest of humanity they were. Criticizing them for not being modern enough is missing the point that they wrote >2400 years ago in a societies that were really, really different from anything around today. You shouldn't complain that they're not modern enough but rather marvel at how modern they are. If you read Tacitus and Cicero you definitely get the sense that they knew that the Late Roman Republic and Early Roman Empire was a major step back from the ideals of the Greeks. And they were right - things were getting worse. Rather like they are now in US academia where 'safe spaces' are seen as being more important than teaching material from 'dead white males' with views modern Millennials might find a bit shocking.
I'd say get a degree you can get a decent ROI on and then try to read up things that are interesting but not particularly commercial in your own time.
If you call a machine with a Linux kernel and GNU userspace utilities "GNU/Linux" does that mean a Windows machine with cygwin is a "GNU\Windows"? And a Mac with a bunch of GNU packages installed from home brew is running "GNU/macOS/BSD"?
On December 22, 1968, Chairman Mao directed the People's Daily to publish a piece entitled "We too have two hands, let us not laze about in the city", which quoted Mao as saying "The intellectual youth must go to the country, and will be educated from living in rural poverty." In 1969, many youth were rusticated. High school students were organized and assigned to the countryside on a national level.
The modern equivalent would be Trump sending all the SJWs from rich families who think they're Marxists from Berkeley and NYU to trade schools in a red state for re-education by the workers. This would cause them to abandon their heretical identity politics and adopt working class values and class based politics.
The rape allegation isn't about non consensual condom removal. It's that he work someone up having sex with them without a condom when they had previously consented to sex only with a condom.
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.
In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".
Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.
Despite Assange's lawyers making 'a sophisticated argument' that this would not be rape in the UK, UK courts repeatedly ruled it was :
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.
Which meant he could be extradited to Sweden. Once the Supreme Court ruled that and he'd run out of appeals he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition and remains there to this day.
Actually if he'd agreed to have an HIV test when Miss W asked him after the whole 'waking her up having unprotected sex' thing, he could probably have pre-empted her going to the police. But he said he was too busy because he's a massive asshole. So now he's stuck in the Embassy, probably indefinitely.
Why not do both? You could use acceleration data to do OIS but at the same time store the acceleration data in the image so that in the future when image processing improved you could get an even clearer image.
In the case of camera shake, if the camera would record its movements while the photo was being taken and included that info in the photo, you could apply a perfect deconvolution filter that would almost completely eliminate the blur (it becomes less accurate near the edges because you've permanently lost info when parts of the photo moved out of the frame).
That's a really excellent idea. Best thing is that if we started doing that now with an imperfect filter later on as filters improved the images would get sharper so long as you had access to the original image with the 'acceleration as a function of time' data in it.
It's almost as good as Bladerunner's 'Zoom. Enhance' image processing.
The 508 ineligible voters identified in the report are spread across the state, with 36 in Wake County, 34 in Durham and two in Orange. The report says that 64 percent were registered Democrats, 18 percent were registered Republicans and the rest were either unaffiliated or Libertarians.
Which tells me that Democrats benefit a lot more from voter fraud than anyone else, which is why they're so opposed to voter ID laws.
And why they support things like California's Motor Voter law (AB-1461) which auto adds anyone who applies for a driving licence to the voting rolls. California gives driving license to illegals. While AB-1461 doesn't explicitly allow them to vote it specifically indemnifies them against fraud charges if they do vote after they are added to to the rolls 'by accident' by the state.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote. This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
I.e. it doesn't legalize illegals voting but it does decriminalize it in the sense they can't be prosecuted. Presumably California Democrats will be telling non citizens it's 'fine' if they vote just like NC Democrats did. And then if the do vote, they can't be prosecuted and the state can just say it was a clerical error.
North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.
A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver's license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.
O'Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.
Greg Amick: Here's a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver's license, but do you have any sort of identification? Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver's license. Amick: Oh, you do. Show 'em that and you're good. PV: But the only problem, you know, I don't want to vote if I'm not legal. I think that's going to be a problem. I'm not sure. Amick: It won't be, it shouldn't be an issue at all. PV: No? Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you'll be fine.
But North Carolina officials shouldn't be "fine" with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony "for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote."
I.e. it was a classic case of an election the Democrats could have won by getting non citizens to vote. North Carolina has about 527,000 non citizens, so about 17K voters assuming 3.3%
In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin calls for the influence of the United States and Atlanticism to lose its influence in Eurasia and for Russia to rebuild its influence through annexations and alliances.
The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."
Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.
The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".
In Europe:
* Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow-Berlin axis". * France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition". * The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe. * Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast". * Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence. * Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere. * Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere. * Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "Orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West". * Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
In the Middle East and Central Asia:
* The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization". * Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis". * Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds". * Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran. * Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable. Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities. * The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).
As we saw, a situation is deemed non ergodic here when observed past probabilities do not apply to future processes. There is a "stop" somewhere, an absorbing barrier that prevents people with skin in the game from emerging from it -and to which the system will invariably tend. Let us call these situations "ruin", as the entity cannot emerge from the condition. The central problem is that if there is a possibility of ruin, cost benefit analyses are no longer possible.
Consider a more extreme example than the Casino experiment. Assume a collection of people play Russian Roulette a single time for a million dollars -this is the central story in Fooled by Randomness. About five out of six will make money. If someone used a standard cost-benefit analysis, he would have claimed that one has 83.33% chance of gains, for an "expected" average return per shot of $833,333. But if you played Russian roulette more than once, you are deemed to end up in the cemetery. Your expected return is... not computable.
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
I think when they say 'Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone' they don't mean 'the T Mobile network uses GPS to track phones' they mean 'When you buy a phone from T Mobile, the firmware must report a GPS location when it calls 911'. Most phones sold in the US will have US specific firmware, and that will do E911. Though the mandate would allow the phone firmware or even the network to do triangulation instead. It's not clear if it mandated that all phones with a GPS receiver must do a location report or if the carrier could do triangulation by the network instead or as a fallback.
Still even ten years ago I remember someone testing Google Maps location with indoors with GPS off and getting a very accurate result on Windows Mobile - enough to put a dot on the right address on the right street. That was cell tower triangulation, presumably snapped to the nearest house on the map. I don't think the phone in question - a Sony Ericsson X1 - had accelerometers for dead reckoning. I.e. ten years ago, on a platform no one cared about, with GPS off, Google Maps had excellent location detection.
I hate FB but I actually feel a bit sorry for them in this case
Before this election you had this situation
A lot of people posted on FB but knew it was a waste of time. FB banned people for saying bad words like tr*nny, f*ggot or n*gger but those people were kinda tedious anyway. FB had a few people arguing about politics, mostly left wingers but a few right wingers who had to be very careful what they said given the left wing nature of the site. People under about 20 wouldn't touch the platform and neither would anyone who cared about privacy.
Then the election happened. FB was full of people arguing about political memes. This caused all the normies who want to post pictures of lunch to give up the site. FB started banning people, mostly conservatives, for bogus reasons. People started to joke about the censorship and rigging of the trending stories. More and more people started to say 'I use it for messaging but never post'.
And then after the election the left blamed them for Trump. So suddenly both the left and right hate them. And it's clear anyone under 30 or over about 40 won't touch the platform. The yoof have moved off to Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. Conservatives have moved off to conservative sites. The left blame them for Trump/fake news/Boris and Natasha stealing the election/not paying tax, etc. Suddenly almost everyone I know refuses to use the site and the weird thing is their reasons are incompatible - FB can't both be a left wing echo chamber that bans dissent (the conservative view) and a evil hive of Russians and Nazis spreading pro Trump fake news (the left wing view). It can't be too full of nutters arguing about politics (the normie view) and too full of dipshits posting pictures of their overpriced lunch (my view).
So they're being forced to crack down on 'Russian trolls' but the odds are by the next US election FB will be seen as completely irrelevant politically because everyone will have moved on. And worse of all the yoof won't use the site. All the signs are FB has hit peak usage and it's all downhill from here.
The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them. The underlying study on which the extrapolation is based has been the subject of some cogent criticisms, and this leads me to believe that the actual rate of non-citizen involvement is on the low end of our initial estimates rather than anywhere close to the high end.
The critics paper is the ' peer-reviewed article [sciencedirect.com] argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article [sciencedirect.com]) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections'
Well it turns out they've issued a response to that
Ansolabehere et. al. (2015) make a useful point - that group-membership measurement error rates must be considered very carefully when analyzing small subsamples. However, there are ways to estimate this error rate, and to validate the estimated error rate using other measures. We have shown that each of four independent approaches to evaluating electoral participation by non-citizens indicates that in fact a small number of non-citizens do most likely participate in US elections. Analysis of group-specific error rates, repeatedly measured individuals, higher frequency behaviors, and hypotheses that follow from the assumption that responses are driven by group-identification errors all yield the same independent conclusion, refuting the Ansolabehere et.al. (2015) contention that the Richman et. al. (2014) non-citizen participation results "are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error" among citizens. A more thorough analysis of the data makes clear that response error in the citizen-status question cannot account for the entirety of observed non-citizen verified and reported voting in the CCES. Hence, the CCES survey does provide substantial evidence that in the United States non-citizens hold verified registration status, cast verified votes, report they are registered, and report they are voters.
The analysis offered above should not be a stopping point, however. There are design choices that can improve the capability to engage in test-retest validation of group status and assessment of differential group-level rates of measurement error. Inclusion of specific followup questions aimed at verifying group membership status in the CCES should be pursued by those interested in making specific inferences about small subpopulations in large sample surveys. In the context of the non-citizen subsample such questions could include closed-ended and open-ended follow-up inquiries aimed at confirming or disconfirming self-identified noncitizen status and thereby ensuring that measurement error does not contaminate estimates of non-citizen sub-population behaviors.
Incidentally in the first source they say
If the percentage of non-citizens voting for Clinton is held constant, roughly 18.5 percent of non-citizens would have had to vote for their votes to have made up the entire Clinton popular vote margin. I don't think that this rate is at all plausible. Even if we assume that 90 percent voted for Clinton and only 10 percent for Trump, a more than fourteen percent turnout would be necessary to account for Clinton's popular vote margin. This is much higher than the estimates we offered. Again, it seems too high to be plausible.
I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.
tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.
And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.
It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.
If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.
Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.
Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it
As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.
In the original article they point out things like
This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd like fries with that. Thanks.
This would also be a good way to control how much radiation from the Sun reaches Earth's surface.
If you really need to that quickly and cheaply sulphate aerosols seem like a very promising option.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change
1) Hiring SJWs for PR and allowing them to bully the people who actually like writing code into attending diversity training instead
2) Sacking harmless autists for writing heartfelt but painfully naive memos complaining about the diversity training after you asked them for their comments
3) Leaking the details of autist's memos to the SJWs at in the tech press, who will completely lie about the contents.
4) Getting sued by sacked autists
5) Convincing people who actually want to write code and not spend time in diversity training to work somewhere else
6) Convincing SJWs in the tech press they can make more money running diversity training at Google than acting as its sock puppets.
7) Becoming a world leader in diversity training and giving up completely on the idea of actually releasing any software.
8) Still having a workforce that is noticably less diverse than the fucking Alt Right Reactosphere.
9) Winning the PR battle in the tech press that all this is justified.
10) Banning competitors that allow free speech from your app store while claiming you support Net Neutrality
11) Winning the PR battle in the tech press that that is justified because those competitors are 'Alt Right'.
12) Getting accused by the Democrats of hosting fake news, the Republicans of censoring conservatives and everyone of being anti competitive
13) See your profits fall despite having vast numbers of users
If you go to Salon with uBlock Origin in Medium Mode - third party scripts and frames are blocked - it turns out it loads fine.
And then you see articles like this on the front page and remember why you deleted your bookmark to Salon about ten years ago
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/18/john-oliver-gives-us-six-lessons-on-how-to-report-on-trump/
A listicle based on failed Brit comedian and CURRENT YEAR man, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC saying things like 'late-night comedians have become the nation's front-running truth tellers'. Yeah, I think I'll pass. If he's not going to cry like Jimmy Kimmel, how do I know he's sincere?
The issue is not whether or not you should read Greek and Roman authors - you most definitely should. The issue is whether you should go $85K into debt to go to a US university to major in philosophy.
Especially as if you did they'd probably regard Plato as a 'dead white male' who had views on sex, race and politics that were - horror of horrors - not the same as those HuffPo writers living in a blue state hold in the 21st Century.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-witte/plato-on-the-dead-white-m_b_10633342.html
Not that Plato's Republic is a good model for a government - it's always seemed to me it was modeled on Sparta. Athens is more analogous to a modern liberal democracy, though modern democracies are representative and not direct and that makes a huge difference. Sparta always seems like what would happen if the US Marine Corps was the whole of America. Athens is what would happen if UC Berkeley was the whole of America - moronic mobs and a handful of intellectuals. Some of whom will, with the benefit of hindsight be seen as very, very far ahead of their time.
Still it's interesting reading Plato and Thucydides because it's weird how far ahead of the rest of humanity they were. Criticizing them for not being modern enough is missing the point that they wrote >2400 years ago in a societies that were really, really different from anything around today. You shouldn't complain that they're not modern enough but rather marvel at how modern they are. If you read Tacitus and Cicero you definitely get the sense that they knew that the Late Roman Republic and Early Roman Empire was a major step back from the ideals of the Greeks. And they were right - things were getting worse. Rather like they are now in US academia where 'safe spaces' are seen as being more important than teaching material from 'dead white males' with views modern Millennials might find a bit shocking.
I'd say get a degree you can get a decent ROI on and then try to read up things that are interesting but not particularly commercial in your own time.
If you call a machine with a Linux kernel and GNU userspace utilities "GNU/Linux" does that mean a Windows machine with cygwin is a "GNU\Windows"? And a Mac with a bunch of GNU packages installed from home brew is running "GNU/macOS/BSD"?
Hi,
I can confirm the extension doesn't in any way report back on people infringing on our IP rights. It's totally safe to use!
Ebenezer Getty
VP of Special Circumstances
Getty
Mao had a rustication program where students were sent to countryside to live with the Proletariat and abandon their bourgeois ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On December 22, 1968, Chairman Mao directed the People's Daily to publish a piece entitled "We too have two hands, let us not laze about in the city", which quoted Mao as saying "The intellectual youth must go to the country, and will be educated from living in rural poverty." In 1969, many youth were rusticated. High school students were organized and assigned to the countryside on a national level.
The modern equivalent would be Trump sending all the SJWs from rich families who think they're Marxists from Berkeley and NYU to trade schools in a red state for re-education by the workers. This would cause them to abandon their heretical identity politics and adopt working class values and class based politics.
Class warfare : it works for the right too.
"Sweden is what would happen if Tumblr was a country"
* En Arg Blatte Talar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The rape allegation isn't about non consensual condom removal. It's that he work someone up having sex with them without a condom when they had previously consented to sex only with a condom.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.
In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".
Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.
Despite Assange's lawyers making 'a sophisticated argument' that this would not be rape in the UK, UK courts repeatedly ruled it was :
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/...
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.
Which meant he could be extradited to Sweden. Once the Supreme Court ruled that and he'd run out of appeals he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition and remains there to this day.
Actually if he'd agreed to have an HIV test when Miss W asked him after the whole 'waking her up having unprotected sex' thing, he could probably have pre-empted her going to the police. But he said he was too busy because he's a massive asshole. So now he's stuck in the Embassy, probably indefinitely.
Why not do both? You could use acceleration data to do OIS but at the same time store the acceleration data in the image so that in the future when image processing improved you could get an even clearer image.
In the case of camera shake, if the camera would record its movements while the photo was being taken and included that info in the photo, you could apply a perfect deconvolution filter that would almost completely eliminate the blur (it becomes less accurate near the edges because you've permanently lost info when parts of the photo moved out of the frame).
That's a really excellent idea. Best thing is that if we started doing that now with an imperfect filter later on as filters improved the images would get sharper so long as you had access to the original image with the 'acceleration as a function of time' data in it.
It's almost as good as Bladerunner's 'Zoom. Enhance' image processing.
It's just so dense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I notice you didn't respond to this
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I think anyone who commits a felony should be prosecuted - Democrats, Republicans and the rest.
Interestingly from your link it seems like more ineligible voters vote Democrat (64%) than Republican (18%) or independent/Libertarian (18%)
http://www.newsobserver.com/ne...
The 508 ineligible voters identified in the report are spread across the state, with 36 in Wake County, 34 in Durham and two in Orange. The report says that 64 percent were registered Democrats, 18 percent were registered Republicans and the rest were either unaffiliated or Libertarians.
Which tells me that Democrats benefit a lot more from voter fraud than anyone else, which is why they're so opposed to voter ID laws.
And why they support things like California's Motor Voter law (AB-1461) which auto adds anyone who applies for a driving licence to the voting rolls. California gives driving license to illegals. While AB-1461 doesn't explicitly allow them to vote it specifically indemnifies them against fraud charges if they do vote after they are added to to the rolls 'by accident' by the state.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
I.e. it doesn't legalize illegals voting but it does decriminalize it in the sense they can't be prosecuted. Presumably California Democrats will be telling non citizens it's 'fine' if they vote just like NC Democrats did. And then if the do vote, they can't be prosecuted and the state can just say it was a clerical error.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.
A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver's license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.
O'Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.
Greg Amick: Here's a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver's license, but do you have any sort of identification?
Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver's license.
Amick: Oh, you do. Show 'em that and you're good.
PV: But the only problem, you know, I don't want to vote if I'm not legal. I think that's going to be a problem. I'm not sure.
Amick: It won't be, it shouldn't be an issue at all.
PV: No?
Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you'll be fine.
But North Carolina officials shouldn't be "fine" with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony "for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote."
Amick stepped down
http://www.charlotteobserver.c...
Tillis won by 45608 votes or 1.5% of the total.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I.e. it was a classic case of an election the Democrats could have won by getting non citizens to vote. North Carolina has about 527,000 non citizens, so about 17K voters assuming 3.3%
https://www.kff.org/other/stat...
In a close race, they could swing it. Amick doesn't seem to have been prosecuted.
See here
https://slashdot.org/comments....
and here
https://slashdot.org/comments....
tl;dr - not really.
It's also a key concept in Foundations of Geopolitics by Aleksandr Dugin, influential Russian nutcase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin calls for the influence of the United States and Atlanticism to lose its influence in Eurasia and for Russia to rebuild its influence through annexations and alliances.
The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."
Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.
The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".
In Europe:
* Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow-Berlin axis".
* France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".
* The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
* Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".
* Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.
* Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.
* Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.
* Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "Orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".
* Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
In the Middle East and Central Asia:
* The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization". ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".
* Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".
* Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people
* Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.
* Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.
* The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).
In Asia:
* China, which
Interesting article
https://medium.com/incerto/the...
Ergodicity
As we saw, a situation is deemed non ergodic here when observed past probabilities do not apply to future processes. There is a "stop" somewhere, an absorbing barrier that prevents people with skin in the game from emerging from it -and to which the system will invariably tend. Let us call these situations "ruin", as the entity cannot emerge from the condition. The central problem is that if there is a possibility of ruin, cost benefit analyses are no longer possible.
Consider a more extreme example than the Casino experiment. Assume a collection of people play Russian Roulette a single time for a million dollars -this is the central story in Fooled by Randomness. About five out of six will make money. If someone used a standard cost-benefit analysis, he would have claimed that one has 83.33% chance of gains, for an "expected" average return per shot of $833,333. But if you played Russian roulette more than once, you are deemed to end up in the cemetery. Your expected return is ... not computable.
If you look at the wiki article
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 911. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 911 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.
I think when they say 'Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone' they don't mean 'the T Mobile network uses GPS to track phones' they mean 'When you buy a phone from T Mobile, the firmware must report a GPS location when it calls 911'. Most phones sold in the US will have US specific firmware, and that will do E911. Though the mandate would allow the phone firmware or even the network to do triangulation instead. It's not clear if it mandated that all phones with a GPS receiver must do a location report or if the carrier could do triangulation by the network instead or as a fallback.
Still even ten years ago I remember someone testing Google Maps location with indoors with GPS off and getting a very accurate result on Windows Mobile - enough to put a dot on the right address on the right street. That was cell tower triangulation, presumably snapped to the nearest house on the map. I don't think the phone in question - a Sony Ericsson X1 - had accelerometers for dead reckoning. I.e. ten years ago, on a platform no one cared about, with GPS off, Google Maps had excellent location detection.
I hate FB but I actually feel a bit sorry for them in this case
Before this election you had this situation
A lot of people posted on FB but knew it was a waste of time. FB banned people for saying bad words like tr*nny, f*ggot or n*gger but those people were kinda tedious anyway. FB had a few people arguing about politics, mostly left wingers but a few right wingers who had to be very careful what they said given the left wing nature of the site. People under about 20 wouldn't touch the platform and neither would anyone who cared about privacy.
Then the election happened. FB was full of people arguing about political memes. This caused all the normies who want to post pictures of lunch to give up the site. FB started banning people, mostly conservatives, for bogus reasons. People started to joke about the censorship and rigging of the trending stories. More and more people started to say 'I use it for messaging but never post'.
And then after the election the left blamed them for Trump. So suddenly both the left and right hate them. And it's clear anyone under 30 or over about 40 won't touch the platform. The yoof have moved off to Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. Conservatives have moved off to conservative sites. The left blame them for Trump/fake news/Boris and Natasha stealing the election/not paying tax, etc. Suddenly almost everyone I know refuses to use the site and the weird thing is their reasons are incompatible - FB can't both be a left wing echo chamber that bans dissent (the conservative view) and a evil hive of Russians and Nazis spreading pro Trump fake news (the left wing view). It can't be too full of nutters arguing about politics (the normie view) and too full of dipshits posting pictures of their overpriced lunch (my view).
So they're being forced to crack down on 'Russian trolls' but the odds are by the next US election FB will be seen as completely irrelevant politically because everyone will have moved on. And worse of all the yoof won't use the site. All the signs are FB has hit peak usage and it's all downhill from here.
Also if you look here
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them. The underlying study on which the extrapolation is based has been the subject of some cogent criticisms, and this leads me to believe that the actual rate of non-citizen involvement is on the low end of our initial estimates rather than anywhere close to the high end.
The critics paper is the ' peer-reviewed article [sciencedirect.com] argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article [sciencedirect.com]) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections'
Well it turns out they've issued a response to that
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
Conclusion
Ansolabehere et. al. (2015) make a useful point - that group-membership measurement error rates must be considered very carefully when analyzing small subsamples. However, there are ways to estimate this error rate, and to validate the estimated error rate using other measures. We have shown that each of four independent approaches to evaluating electoral participation by non-citizens indicates that in fact a small number of non-citizens do most likely participate in US elections. Analysis of group-specific error rates, repeatedly measured individuals, higher frequency behaviors, and hypotheses that follow from the assumption that responses are driven by group-identification errors all yield the same independent conclusion, refuting the Ansolabehere et.al. (2015) contention that the Richman et. al. (2014) non-citizen participation results "are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error" among citizens. A more thorough analysis of the data makes clear that response error in the citizen-status question cannot account for the entirety of observed non-citizen verified and reported voting in the CCES. Hence, the CCES survey does provide substantial evidence that in the United States non-citizens hold verified registration status, cast verified votes, report they are registered, and report they are voters.
The analysis offered above should not be a stopping point, however. There are design choices that can improve the capability to engage in test-retest validation of group status and assessment of differential group-level rates of measurement error. Inclusion of specific followup questions aimed at verifying group membership status in the CCES should be pursued by those interested in making specific inferences about small subpopulations in large sample surveys. In the context of the non-citizen subsample such questions could include closed-ended and open-ended follow-up inquiries aimed at confirming or disconfirming self-identified noncitizen status and thereby ensuring that measurement error does not contaminate estimates of non-citizen sub-population behaviors.
Incidentally in the first source they say
If the percentage of non-citizens voting for Clinton is held constant, roughly 18.5 percent of non-citizens would have had to vote for their votes to have made up the entire Clinton popular vote margin. I don't think that this rate is at all plausible. Even if we assume that 90 percent voted for Clinton and only 10 percent for Trump, a more than fourteen percent turnout would be necessary to account for Clinton's popular vote margin. This is much higher than the estimates we offered. Again, it seems too high to be plausible.
See here
https://slashdot.org/comments....
tl;dr - not really.
Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.
Rebuttals
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Author's response which seems to cover them all :
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.
tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.
And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.
It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.
Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.
Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.
In the original article they point out things like
This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens