Okay, help me out here Slashdot crowd. Is the above post an example of:
A) Sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity B) Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling C) A and B D) None of the above
When I wrote the original post, I knew this would be the first response (outside of a goofy troll, I was right). Basically, every advance has the potential to be used for evil purposes. It is up to us as a society to stand up against that. That has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Imagine having advice hooked up that could monitor for a heart attack or a stroke. If detected, emergency could be called automatically. If reliable, what would this do for survival rates? In many cases, survival or simply the degree of damage is determined by how quickly treatment begins. I think something like this, if reliable and unobtrusive, would be a major leap forward for health treatment.
A worker who earns 100K will get a little less than double what a worker making 30K. It is very much tilted toward the lower-income earners. So in the gp post, the person is likely saving a lot more money not paying the tax than what he is likely to get out of the system.
In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.
Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand (it was) and thoroughly scoped out BEFORE the investment (it wasn't).
A quick search shows about 150 deaths per year in the U.S. from deer. Another page notes that Europe suffers from deer related crashes as well. No numbers.
At any rate, considering we average around 40,000 traffic fatalities a year, 150 makes very little difference in the statistics.
Moreover, I can't find any statistics on average distance travelled so I wouldn't assume that easily that americans drive more or that the difference is significant anyway.
Well, a little bit of math on the existing table would help you out. In the United States we have over twice (2.37x) the fatalities per inhabitant as Germany. Yet, we only have 21 percent more fatalities per KM driven.
So, yes, I would think we drive a hell of a lot more miles. Close to double.
I think the absurdity is "no company outlives its lifetime". By definition, this is true. Unless we have some type of zombie company, I can't think of how you would falsify this claim...
Yup. And scientists gave us nuclear bombs. That's why I don't listen to anyone with a kolidge degree. Fuck global warming. Fuck losing weight. Fuck a 13 billion year old universe.
I also second, but for different reasons: "I have a lot of experience with games, having played them for most of my adult life, and have always toyed with the idea of making them one day."
If this qualifies as lots of experience, then I have a lot of experience being a porn star, an astronaut, and world dictator.
This legal decision has restored my faith in the legal system. A small group of people were able to fight for their rights against a huge behemoth corporation and win. ~
Welcome to science, things change based on new information.
We get a hypothesis, test it, and if it tests out we have a generally accepted theory. That theory is subject to change, someone reads its comes up with a new hypothesis and runs some more tests.
The problem is that folks are making life-changing decisions based on these theories. Doctors yell at us. TV "educates" us about what is acceptable. Then, something new comes along and says 'forget all that stuff, do this instead'. Doesn't take long before folks tune it out altogether.
For me, it was salt. Loved it. The more the better. Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all, unless you already have a heart condition, or family history. So basically I got duped into giving up something I enjoyed. Makes me more skeptical about the next scientific finding about my diet.
Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)
Note to mods: troll does not equal "i disagree". Frankly I disagree with Tom. I think his point of view is very childish and has a large lack of empathy, or even the rudiments of human compassion. However, his point of view is not trollish.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, help me out here Slashdot crowd. Is the above post an example of:
A) Sufficiently advanced trolling is indistinguishable from stupidity
B) Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling
C) A and B
D) None of the above
Thanks.
When I wrote the original post, I knew this would be the first response (outside of a goofy troll, I was right). Basically, every advance has the potential to be used for evil purposes. It is up to us as a society to stand up against that. That has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Imagine having advice hooked up that could monitor for a heart attack or a stroke. If detected, emergency could be called automatically. If reliable, what would this do for survival rates? In many cases, survival or simply the degree of damage is determined by how quickly treatment begins. I think something like this, if reliable and unobtrusive, would be a major leap forward for health treatment.
I DIDNT DO IT!
This is Slashdot. That goes without saying.
A worker who earns 100K will get a little less than double what a worker making 30K. It is very much tilted toward the lower-income earners. So in the gp post, the person is likely saving a lot more money not paying the tax than what he is likely to get out of the system.
Here, I'll handle that for you.
In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.
Now, one would think a major issue like this would have been thought of beforehand (it was) and thoroughly scoped out BEFORE the investment (it wasn't).
A quick search shows about 150 deaths per year in the U.S. from deer. Another page notes that Europe suffers from deer related crashes as well. No numbers.
At any rate, considering we average around 40,000 traffic fatalities a year, 150 makes very little difference in the statistics.
Moreover, I can't find any statistics on average distance travelled so I wouldn't assume that easily that americans drive more or that the difference is significant anyway.
Well, a little bit of math on the existing table would help you out. In the United States we have over twice (2.37x) the fatalities per inhabitant as Germany. Yet, we only have 21 percent more fatalities per KM driven.
So, yes, I would think we drive a hell of a lot more miles. Close to double.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, Sergey.
I think the absurdity is "no company outlives its lifetime". By definition, this is true. Unless we have some type of zombie company, I can't think of how you would falsify this claim...
Yup. And scientists gave us nuclear bombs. That's why I don't listen to anyone with a kolidge degree. Fuck global warming. Fuck losing weight. Fuck a 13 billion year old universe.
Tell that to this company.
I also second, but for different reasons: "I have a lot of experience with games, having played them for most of my adult life, and have always toyed with the idea of making them one day."
If this qualifies as lots of experience, then I have a lot of experience being a porn star, an astronaut, and world dictator.
I heard they collaborated and made their own.
Please mod: -1, Ewwwww.
So, the choice is
1. Allow everyone in the world to sniff my browsing history.
2. give up the ability to see my own browsing history.
Somehow, this doesn't seem right...
This legal decision has restored my faith in the legal system. A small group of people were able to fight for their rights against a huge behemoth corporation and win. ~
Ever since I started lifting weights 10 years ago, I went from underweight to obese on the BMI scale..
Problem is, your weight lifting program is the twelve ounce curl.
Welcome to science, things change based on new information.
We get a hypothesis, test it, and if it tests out we have a generally accepted theory. That theory is subject to change, someone reads its comes up with a new hypothesis and runs some more tests.
The problem is that folks are making life-changing decisions based on these theories. Doctors yell at us. TV "educates" us about what is acceptable. Then, something new comes along and says 'forget all that stuff, do this instead'. Doesn't take long before folks tune it out altogether.
For me, it was salt. Loved it. The more the better. Then I read about how bad it is for your heart. So I cut it out dramatically. Then a couple years later, I read about how it isn't very bad at all, unless you already have a heart condition, or family history. So basically I got duped into giving up something I enjoyed. Makes me more skeptical about the next scientific finding about my diet.
Agreed. I was 10 pounds over my "ideal range" five years ago. But I was lean and had decent upper body muscle from doing a lot of construction work. After ending that, I made a conscious choice to drop those ten pounds since I knew I would not be keeping the muscle. So, I became "ideal weight" even though I was in worse shape physically. Since then I have put on those 10 pounds (mid-age metabolism slow down). So according to the chart, I am in the same place I was five years ago.
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
(and thanks Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts)
Then let me ask this. If slightly overweight seems to be healthy, then how was the "ideal" weight range determined?
Somebody call a wahmbulance.
Isn't the PDF format open source?
Or if you even looked at the article, you would see a demo of it running underwater.
I got redirected to an obviously fake news site.
Note to mods: troll does not equal "i disagree". Frankly I disagree with Tom. I think his point of view is very childish and has a large lack of empathy, or even the rudiments of human compassion. However, his point of view is not trollish.